Oj  _  2 


/ 

J 


^  “Nib, 

TDT?T'NTr'T7'T'r4M  XT  T 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


& 


Presented  bytf2rn\^Yi30Yn\<?\n3In.£^V‘VvA'V\  on . 


Er  j 

..o...* . 


Section  •  •*•> 


V,4-^ 


\ 


■  .. 


t 


INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO 
AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA 

AND  THEIR  GEOGRAPHICAL 
DISTRIBUTION 


CYRUS  THOMAS 

ASSISTED  BY 

JOHN  R.  SWANTON 


ACCOMPANIED  WITH  .A.  LUSTG-TTISTIC  MIAAP 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1911 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/indianlanguageso00thom_1 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

About  the  year  1895  Maj.  J.  W.  Powell,  Director  of  the  Bureau 
of  American  Ethnology,  determined  on  the  preparation  of  a  linguistic 
map  of  that  part  of  North  America  south  of  the  Mexican  boundary, 
having  in  view  the  extension  southward  of  the  classification  and  map¬ 
ping  of  the  linguistic  families  north  of  that  border.  Dr.  Cyrus  Thomas 
was  assigned  the  task  of  assembling  the  preliminary  data  and  the  prep¬ 
aration  of  a  sketch  map,  but  the  death  of  Major  Powell  before  the 
research  had  assumed  final  shape,'  and  the  assignment  to  Doctor 
Thomas  of  more  urgent  work,  necessitated  delay  in  the  comple¬ 
tion  until  the  latter  part  of  1908.  At  that  time  Dr.  J.  R.  Swanton, 
who  had  entered  on  a  study  of  the  languages  of  the  tribes  of  the 
lower  Mississippi  valley  and  the  Gulf  coast,  became  interested  in  the 
linguistic  classification  of  the  tribes  of  middle  America,  and  on  the 
joint  suggestion  of  Doctors  Thomas  and  Swanton  copies  of  the  map 
were  prepared  and  submitted  to  a  number  of  students  who  had 
devoted  attention  to  the  languages  and  ethnology  of  Mexico  and 
Central  America,  soliciting  criticism  and  making  inquiry  respecting 
the  advisability  of  publication  at  this  stage.  The  following  anthro¬ 
pologists  responded, 'furnishing  valuable  data:  Dr.  Carl  Sapper,  Dr. 
A.  L.  Kroeber,  Dr.  Frederick  Starr,  Dr.  Nicolas  Leon,  Dr.  H.  Pittier 
de  Fabrega,  Dr.  A.  M.  Tozzer,  Sefior  Francisco  Belmar,  Dr.  Ales 
Hrdlicka,  and  Dr.  Franz  Boas.  Corrections  and  additions  were 
made  in  accordance  with  some  of  the  suggestions  offered,  bringing  the 
classification  and  the  map  as  nearly  to  date  as  possible.  These  results 
are  now  submitted,  not  as  a  final  work,  but  as  an  attempt  to  repre¬ 
sent  the  present  state  of  knowledge  regarding  a  subject  which  may 
never  be  cleared  entirely  of  obscurity. 

W.  H.  Holmes,  Chief. 


June  2,  1909. 


iii 


CONTENTS 


Page 


Introduction . 1 

Mexico . 2 

Cocopa .  2 

Cochimi .  3 

Wa'icuri  and  Pericu . 4 

Pima .  7 

Opata.... .  7 

Tarahumare .  8 

Seri .  10 

The  Yaqui  group . 11 

Zoe  and  Tepahue . . , . . .  17 

Tepehuane .  19 

Acaxee .  19 

Cora . 21 

Huichol .  22 

Tepecano,  Teule,  Cazcan,  and  Tecuexe . . .  23 

Names  of  tribes  in  northwestern  Mexico  not  considered  separately .  24 

Concho . : .  36 

Toboso .  37 

Pakawan .  38 

Laguneros .  38 

Zacateco .  40 

Guachichile .  40 

The  term  Chichimeca .  41 

Tamaulipeco .  44 

Pisone  and  Janambre .  44 

Olive .  44 

Names  of  tribes  in  northeastern  Mexico  not  consjcjercd  separately .  45 

Otomi . .• .  46 

Pame . 46 

Mazahua . 47 

Pirinda . 48 

Meco .  48 

Huasteca . J .  48 

Totonac . 49 

Tepehua . 49 

Meztitlaneca .  50 

Tlascalan .  50 

Cuitlateco .  50 

Tarasco . - .  51 

Aztec .  51 

Mixtec .  52 

Trike .  52 

Chocho .  53 


v 


VI 


CONTENTS 


Mexico — Continued . 

Amishgo . 

Chatino . 

Mazateco . 

Cuicateco . . 

Chinantec . 

Zapotec . 

The  Mixtec  and  Zapotec  languages  compared 

Chontal . 

Huave . 

Mixe . 

Zoque . 

Central  America . . 

Chiapanec . 

Chontal  (of  Tabasco) . 

Tzotzil . 

Tzental . 

choi . : . 

Chanabal . 

Chicomucelteca . 

Motozintleca . 

Tapachulteca . 

Sub  inha . 

Jacalteca . 

Chuje . 

Achis . 

Mam . 

Ixil . 

Aguacateca . 

Kiche . 

Cakchikel . - . 

Tzutuhil . 

Uspanteca . 

Kekchi . 

Pokonchi . 

Pokomam . . 

Chorti . 

Maya  proper . 

Maya  dialects . 

Alaguilac . 

Pipil . . . 

Xinca . 

Lenca . 

Tlascalteca . . 

Jicaque . . . 

Pay  a . 

Carib . 

Matagalpa . 

Mangue . 

Subtiaban . 

Dirian . 

Niquiran . 

Orotinan . 

Ulva . 


Page 

54 

54 

54 

55 
55 

55 

56 

58 

59 

60 
60 
61 
61 
61 
62 
62 

63 

64 

65 
65 
65 
65 

65 

66 
66 
66 
67 
67 
67 

67 

68 
68 
68 
69 
69 

69 

70 
70 
72 

72 

73 

73 

74 

75 

75 

76 
76 

76 

77 

77 

78 
78 
78 


CONTENTS 


VII 


Central  America — Continued.  Page 

Rama . ' .  80 

Mosquito .  80 

General  remarks  on  the  tribes  of  Costa  Rica .  81 

Guatuso .  84 

Guetare . .  85 

Voto .  87 

Suerre  (?) .  87 

Quepo  (?) .  88 

Talamanca .  88 

Sigua .  92 

Doraskean  tribes .  93 

Guaymie .  94 

Cuna .  95 

Ethnic  dividing  line  between  North  and  South  America .  96 

Bibliography . . .  97 

Index  of  linguistic  families,  tribes,  and  settlements .  101 


ILLUSTRATION 


Linguistic  map  of  Mexico  and  Central  America .  at  end 


*  '*v 


INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL 

AMERICA 

By  Cyrus  Thomas 
Assisted  by  John  R.  Swanton 

INTRODUCTION 

The  narrative  portion  of  this  bulletin  is  devoted  to  a  statement  of 
the  authority  on  which  the  establishment  of  the  linguistic  areas  indi¬ 
cated  on  the  accompanying  map  rests,  along  with  the  writer’s  reasons 
for  adopting  certain  names  and  rejecting  others.  For  Mexico, 
Orozco  y  Berra’s  map  and  conclusions  are  used  as  a  basis,  and  it 
will  be  found,  though  the  original  authorities,  so  far  as  accessible, 
have  been  examined,  that  there  has  been  occasion  for  but  few  and 
comparatively  slight  changes.  This  authority  was  not  only  familiar 
with  all  of  the  works,  early  and  late,  bearing  on  this  subject  that  had 
been  published  up  to  his  time,  but  he  also  had  access  to  numerous 
unpublished  documents. 

As  these  notes  will  show,  there  are  some  other  linguistic  names 
which,  in  view  of  the  evidence,  are  entitled  perhaps  to  places  on  the 
map,  but  it  has  been  considered  best  to  omit  them  wherever  much 
doubt  exists.  It  has  been  found  impossible,  and  perhaps  it  will 
always  remain  so,  to  indicate  the  smaller  linguistic  areas  within  the 
major  stocks  in  conformity  with  any  absolute  standard.  The  Mayan, 
Zapotecan,  Zoquean,  and  part  of  the  Nahuatlan  stocks  are  the  only 
ones  which  could  be  satisfactorily  treated  in  this  manner,  but  it  must 
be  remembered  that  many  others  would  be  found  to  have  similar  sub¬ 
divisions  were  data  available.  Where  relationship  is  suspected  be¬ 
tween  two  or  more  stocks  an  endeavor  has  been  made  to  indicate  the 
fact  by  using  related  shades  of  coloring.  All  tribes  treated  in  the  text 
will  not  be  found  indicated  on  the  map,  in  some  cases  because  the 
languages  spoken  by  them  did  not  differ  sufficiently  from  those  of 
their  neighbors  to  warrant  independent  representation,  and  in  others 
because  they  occupied  “  unclassified  ”  areas.  As  mentioned  in  the 
prefatory  note,  the  map  accompanying  this  bulletin  has  been  sub¬ 
mitted  to  a  number  of  students  familiar  with  Mexican  ethnology, 
and  several  alterations  and  additions  suggested  by  them  have  been 
adopted. 

C.  T. 

l 


2 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


MEXICO 

CoCOPA 

0 Synonym :  Cucapa) 

The  Indians  speaking  this  idiom  are  generally  placed  in  the  Yuman 
family,  and,  according  to  Orozco  y  Berra,  are  sometimes  referred  to  by 
the  names  Cnhanes,  Cuanes,  and  YTianes.  The  name  given  on  his 
map  is  Cuhanes.  Unfortunately,  however,  he  has  made  two  tribes 
of  them,  one  (Cucapas,  or  Cuhanes)  which  he  places  in  the  Yuman 
family;  the  other  (Cocopas)  in  the  Piman  family.  Doctor  Gatschet 
(4 1 5) 1  makes  the  two  names  synonyms  and  places  the  one  tribe  in 
the  Yuman  family.  However,  the  relations  of  the  tribe  have  not 
yet  been  satisfactorily  worked  out.  These  Indians  live  along  the 
Colorado  river  near  its  mouth. 

COCHIMI 

The  Cocliimi  were  a  division  of  the  Yuman  family  living  in  the 
northern  portions  of  the  Californian  peninsula.  Their  territory  ex¬ 
tended  from  the  international  boundary  southward  to,  or  a  little 
beyond,  the  twenty-sixth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  including  Loreto, 
where  it  was  bounded  by  the  territory  of  the  Waicuri  (Bancroft,  i, 
557).  Orozco  y  Berra  says  (1:366):  “Los  Cochimles  ocupaban  la 
peninsula  desde  Loreto  hasta  poco  mas  alia  de  nuestra  frontera.” 
Venegas  (i,  66)  says:  “Desde  el  territorio  de  Loreto,  por  todo  lo 
descubierto  al  Norte  de  la  nacion  Cocliimi;  ”  Clavigero  (22)  says  from 
25°  to  33°  north  latitude. 

The  Cocliimi  spoke  a  distinct  language  of  the  Yuman  stock,  di¬ 
vided,  however,  into  from  two  to  four  dialects.  Orozco  y  Berra,  in 
his  text  (1:  366-367),  mentions  three,  Cocliimi  del  Norte,  Edu,  and 
Didu,  but  on  his  map  he  adds  what  seems  to  be  a  fourth,  Cochimi 
(proper).  He  is  evidently  in  error  in  referring  to  the  Edu  and  Didu 
here,  since  they  were  Walcurian  and  were  situated  considerably 
farther  south.  The  northern  Cochimi  are  mentioned  by  some 
authors  as  the  Laymon.  Prichard  (n,  553)  mentions  “The  Cochimi, 
Pericu,  and  Loretto  languages;  the  former  is  the  same  as  the  Lay¬ 
mon,  for  the  Laymones  are  the  northern  Cochimies.”  Hassel  (57) 
mentions  Laymon  as  distinct,  and  the  Cochimi  with  three  distinct 
dialects — San  Francisco  Borgia,  Utschiti,  and  Ika.  Bancroft 
(in,  687)  mentions  but  two  dialects  of  the  Cochimi  in  his  text — Lay¬ 
mon  and  Ika.  It  is  questionable,  however,  whether  the  Ika  were  not 
Walcurian. 

In  spite  of  Orozco  y  Berra's  error  in  placing  the  Didu  and  Edu,  the 
territory  assigned  by  him  to  the  Yuman  stock  agrees  with  the  infor¬ 
mation  of  our  best  early  authorities,  and  he  has  been  followed  in  the 
accompanying  map. 


1  See  the  Bibliography,  pages  97-100. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA 


3 


Waicuri  and  Pericu 

It  is  usually  stated  that  three  principal  languages  were  spoken  in 
Lower  California — Cochimi,  which  constituted  a  dialect  of  the  Yuman 
family  and  has  already  been  treated,  Waicuri,  and  Pericu.  Could 
the  authorities  for  this  statement  be  sifted  down  in  every  case,  it 
would  probably  be  found  that  most  of  them  derived  their  information 
from  Venegas,  who  quotes  a  missionary  named  Taraval.  In  the 
same  chapter  Venegas  admits  that  other  missionaries  increased  the 
number  to  four  or  five,  and  gives  one  to  understand  that  the  more 
intimate  a  person  became  with  the  people  the  fewer  linguistic 
divisions  he  found  to  exist.  That  Cochimi  and  the  languages  to 
the  south  of  it  were  entirely  distinct  is  known  on  linguistic  evidence. 
The  short  vocabulary  of  Bagert  is  nearly  all  that  is  now  available 
of  the  languages  at  the  lower  end  of  the  peninsula,  and  Brinton  at¬ 
tempted  to  find  resemblances  between  this  and  Yuman,  but  the 
futility  of  his  attempt  has  been  demonstrated  by  Mr.  J.  N.  B.  Hewitt, 
and  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  independent  position  of  the  two 
languages.  Regarding  Pericu,  the  case  is  different,  because,  so  far 
as  known,  there  is  not  a  word  of  that  language,  except  some  proper 
names,  in  existence,  the  only  sources  of  information  being  the  state¬ 
ments  of  early  writers  and  circumstantial  evidence.  As  already 
noted,  the  majority  of  direct  statements  make  this  people  inde¬ 
pendent  of  the  Waicuri,  but  it  is  questionable  how  many  independent 
original  sources  are  represented.  On  the  other  hand,  two  authorities 
mention  but  two  stock  languages  in  the  entire  peninsula,  one  of 
which  is,  of  course,  Yuman,  while  the  other  includes  all  of  the  lan¬ 
guages  to  the  south  of  it.  Again,  if  Pericu  were  really  distinct  from 
all  others,  why  are  so  many  mistakes  made  in  applying  the  term? 
Although  the  Cora  who  occupied  the  eastern  side  of  the  peninsula 
at  its  lower  end  are  frequently  spoken  of  as  a  Waicuri  tribe,  Venegas 
states  that  they  were  Pericu,  and  among  later  writers  Orozco  y  Berra 
does  not  hesitate  to  include  them  in  his  Pericu  area.  Again,  al¬ 
though  Venegas  gives  the  LTtciti  as  a  branch  of  the  Waicuri  in  his 
chapter  on  languages,  in  his  second  volume  he  mentions  them  as  a 
Pericu  tribe.  Thirdly,  although  linguistic  evidence  can  not  be 
brought  to  bear  satisfactorily,  there  is  in  the  word  Pericu  itself  and 
in  a  number  of  personal  and  mythological  names  from  that  tongue, 
proof  of  the  existence  of  the  phonetic  r,  which  is  also  present  in 
Waicuri,  but  conspicuously  absent  from  Cochimi.  Altogether  it 
seems  best  to  regard  Pericu  as  related  to  Waicuri,  only  more  distantly 
than  any  other  of  the  group  of  southern  dialects.  As  indicated  on 
the  map,  the  name  appears  to  have  been  confined  properly  to  one 
tribe  about  the  mission  of  San  Jose,  near  Cape  St.  Lucas,  and  extend¬ 
ing  northward  on  the  west  coast  of  Lower  California  to  about  23°  30'. 


4 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Pima 

The  Pima  are  scattered,  as  shown  by  the  map,  in  five  isolated 
groups,  as  follows: 

Pima  Alto  (Upper  Pima). 

Pima  Bajo  (Lower  Pima). 

Potlapigua. 

Pima  of  Bamoa. 

Tepehuane  colony. 

Pima  Alto. — As  the  Indians  of  this  group  are  confined  chiefly  to 
the  United  States  and  are  referred  to  in  the  Seventh  Annual  Report 
of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  and  as  the  area  is  marked  on 
the  linguistic  map  accompanying  that  Report,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
discuss  them  here. 

Pima  Bajo. — The  Lower  Pima  extended  east  and  west  along  the 
lower  middle  portion  of  the  Yaqui  river,  joining  the  Tarahumare  on 
the  east,  the  Opata  on  the  north,  the  Yaqui  on  the  south,  and  the  Seri 
on  the  west.  These  are  substantially  the  boundaries  given  by  Orozco 
y  Berra,  and  are  based  chiefly  on  the  position  of  villages  in  which 
the  Piman  language  was  spoken.  However,  the  evidence  in  regard 
to  the  narrow  strip  extending  along  the  south  bank  of  the  San  Jose 
river  to  the  Gulf,  as  shown  on  the  map,  is  not  entirely  satisfactory. 
It  is  also  possible  that  the  eastern  boundary  has  been  carried  a 
short  distance  into  the  Tarahumare  territory. 

Father  Ribas  (370)  mentions  as  pueblos  of  the  Lower  Pima:  Como- 
ripa,  Tecoripa,  Zuaque  (Suaque),  and  Aivino.  The  last  two  deter¬ 
mine  the  extreme  northern  boundary  as  given  by  Orozco  y  Berra, 
while  the  first  was  located  on  the  Yaqui  river  not  far  from  the  south¬ 
ern  boundary.  His  statement  (358)  that  the  pueblos  of  the*  Movas, 
Onavas,  and  Nuri  belonged  to  the  Upper  Pima  must  be  a  misprint 
or  a  clerical  error,  as  they  were  certainly  situated  in  the  territory  of  the 
Pima  Bajo,  and  he  must  have  known  this;  however,  there  is  further 
mention  of  this  point  below.  The  situation  of  the  Nuri  pueblo  deter¬ 
mines  the  extreme  southern  point  of  the  area  in  the  map,  and  Nocori 
the  northwestern  extension.  However,  the  pueblos  of  Yepachic  and 
Tonachic  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  territory,  as  laid  down  by  Orozco  y 
Berra,  appear,  from  the  termination  of  the  names,  to  be  of  Tarahumare 
origin,  and  this  supposition  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  the  statement 
of  Juan  Ortiz  Zapata  (340)  that  these  two  pueblos  were  included 
among  the  Tarahumare  missions.  A  slight  change  from  Orozco  y 
Berra’s  eastern  boundary  line  has  therefore  been  made  to  correspond 
with  this  evidence.  Though  the  Pima  language  may  possibly  have 
been  spoken  at  these  two  missions,  the  names  betray  the  fact  that 
the  pueblos  were  originally  Tarahumare. 

Potlapigua. — An  isolated  group  of  Pima,  named  Potlapigua,  is  men¬ 
tioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:348)  in  the  region  of  Babispe,  on  the 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  5 

northeastern  boundary  of  the  Opata  territory,  though  not  marked 
on  his  map.  They  are  located  by  Hamy1  on  his  map,  however,  and 
are  noted  on  the  map  accompanying  this  paper,  though  numbered  3 
by  mistake.  That  this  separation  from  the  main  body  dates  back  to 
the  period  herein  referred  to  seems  to  be  proven  by  the  fact  that 
Ribas  (359)  mentions  the  “Bapispes”  as  in  the  direction  of  New 
Mexico  from  Sinaloa. 

Pima  of  Bamoa. — Another  isolated  group  was  situated  south  of 
the  Mayo  on  lower  Sinaloa  river,  Bamoa  being  the  chief  pueblo. 
This  group,  which  is  properly  marked  on  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map 
(under  the  name  Bamoa),  consisted,  chiefly  at  least,  of  the  Pima 
who  accompanied  Cabeza  de  Yaca  on  his  return  from  Florida  (Ribas, 
119;  Orozco  y  Berra,  1:  333).  The  former  says  expressly  that  these 
accompanying  Indians  were  Nebomes  (Pima)  and  that  they  settled 
the  pueblo  of  Bamoa  on  the  Rio  de  Petatlan  (Sinaloa  river).  They 
do  not  appear  to  have  spoken  a  language  dialectically  different  from 
Lower  Pima,  hence  the  name  Bamoa  is  omitted  from  our  map. 

Tepehuane  colony. — Hamy  locates  another  small  group,  without 
any  special  name,  in  the  extreme  western  portion  of  the  Tepehuane 
territory.  This  is  based  probably  on  the  statement  by  Orozco  y 
Berra  (1 : 324)  that  some  documents  say  that  the  villages  of  this  sec¬ 
tion  were  inhabited  by  Pima,  and  others,  that  they  were  peopled 
by  Tepehuane.  He  adds  the  belief  that  they  were  chiefly  Pima. 

Mention  is  made  of  several  supposed  subtribes  of  the  Lower  Pima, 
as  the  Movas,  Comuripa,  Aibino,  Onavas,  and  Nuri;  but  these  names 
appear  to  refer  chiefly  to  different  villages  without  sufficient  evidence 
of  difference  in  dialect.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:353)  says  the  Movas, 
Onavas,  Nuri,  Comuripa,  and  Tecoripa  were  pueblos  of  the  Lower 
Pima  in  which  the  Pima  language  was  spoken,  but  that  the  Aibino 
and  Sisibotari  were  subtribes  of  the  Upper  Pima  (an  evident  error, 
as  Aibino  was  a  Lower  Pima  pueblo) ;  Hamy  places  the  Aibino, 
Comuripa,  Onavas,  Movas,  and  Nuri  on  his  map  as  sub  tribes  of  the 
Lower  Pima.  (See  remarks  below.) 

Doctor  Brinton  asserts  (3: 127)  that  the  Ahome  were  “a  distinctly 
Pima  people,”  referring  to  Buelna  as  authority.2  This  is  probably 
an  error,  as  the  dialect  spoken  by  this  people  appears  to  have  been 
substantially  the  same  as  that  spoken  by  the  Guazave,  who  per¬ 
tained  to  the  Yaqui  group  (Yaqui,  Mayo,  Tehueco),  as  will  appear 
in  the  notes  relating  to  that  tribe. 

Although  the  Guayma  have  generally  been  considered  a  subtribe 
of  the  Seri,  Hervas  appears  to  dissent  from  this  view,  and  compara¬ 
tively  recently  Pinart,  from  an  examination  of  a  remnant  of  the 
group,  is  inclined  to  connect  them  with  the  Pima  (Brinton,  3:127). 

1  Bull.  Soc.  d’anthrop.  de  Paris,  3.  s.,  vi,  785-791,  Nov.,  1883,  and  Decades  Americanae  3d  and  4th,  99. 
See  also  Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  4th  ser.,  i,  401. 

2  Peregrinacion  de  los  Aztecas  y  Noinbres  Geograficos  Indlgenas  de  Sinaloa,  p.  21,  Mexico,  1887. 


6 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Further  examination  of  this  point  will  be  found  in  the  notes  relating 
to  the  Seri. 

Reference  to  the  supposed  tribes  or  subtribes  Aibino  (or  Aivino), 
Movas  (or  Mobas),  Comuripa  (or  Comoripa),  Onavas  (or  Onabas), 
Tecoripa,  and  Nuri  is  again  made  in  order  to  give  briefly  the  reasons 
for  omitting  them  from  the  map.  As  stated  above,  they  are  con¬ 
sidered  by  Orozco  y  Berra  as  merely  pueblos  in  which  the  Pima 
language  was  spoken  without  such  dialectic  differences  as  to  justify 
considering  them  distinct.  As  a  rule,  all  dialects  referred  to  by  early 
authors  writing  of  this  section  are  spoken  of  as  “ distinct”  or  1  ‘par¬ 
ticular  ”  languages,  though  the  writers  recognized  their  affinities. 

In  regard  to  the  Onava  and  Tecoripa,  it  seems  to  be  fairly  inferred 
from  the  statements  byCancio  (155-156)  that  they  spoke  the  Piman 
language.  This  agrees  with  the  statement  by  Zapata  (358-361) 
that  the  language  spoken  at  Tecoripa,  Cumuripa,  and  Onava  was 
Pima,  and  that  at  Mova  the  language  was  partly  Pima  and  partly 
Egue  (Eudeve),  and  hence  not  distinct.  Velarde  (399)  calls  the 
Indians  of  Tecoripa,  and  also  the  Aibino,  Pima.  Ribas  (370)  includes 
the  pueblos  Comoripa,  Tecoripa,  and  Aibino  among  those  of  the 
Lower  Pima. 

The  last-named  author  (299,  358)  speaks  of  the  Nuri  as  Nebome 
(Pima)  and  on  the  latter  page  connects  them  with  the  Upper  Pima, 
but  on  page  369  says  they  are  a  nation  of  a  language  different  from 
that  of  the  Upper  Pima,  though  not  very  distant  from  them. 
However,  according  to  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:351)  they  inhabited  the 
pueblo  of  Nuri,  which  was  certainly  Lower  Pima.  It  seems  from 
Ribas  (lib.  vi,  cap.  vi)  that  the  Nuri  he  refers  to  as  belonging  to  or 
adjoining  the  Upper  Pima  were  a  different  people  from  those  occupying 
the  Nuri  pueblo. 

Although  Hamy  places  these  names  (except  Tecoripa)  on  his  map 
heretofore  referred  to,  and  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  are 
spoken  of  as  “naciones,”  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant 
the  conclusion  that  they  spoke  distinct  dialects.  Ribas  (373-374), 
speaking  of  the  Aivino  and  other  pueblos  of  that  immediate  section 
(en  todaesta  tierra  adetro),says  two  languages  were  current  through¬ 
out,  and  that  Padre  Olinano,  who  preached  to  them,  understood  well 
the  two  languages  of  these  nations.  However,  he  fails  to  state 
what  languages  these  were.  By  turning  to  Zapata’s  Relacion,  here¬ 
tofore  referred  to,  some  light  on  this  point  may  be  obtained. 
Speaking  of  the  Mobas  (361),  he  says  their  language,  as  mentioned 
above,  was  partly  Pima  and  partly  Egue  (Eudeve),  which  so  far 
agrees  with  Ribas’s  statement  and  indicates  the  two  languages  to 
which  the  latter  refers. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  7 


Opata 

(Synonym:  Teguima) 

The  Opata  lived  chiefly  about  the  headwaters  of  the  Yaqui  and 
Hermosillo  rivers,  the  Apache  being  on  the  northeast,  the  Tarahumare 
on  the  southeast,  the  Lower  Pima  on  the  south,  and  the  Seri  on  the 
west.  There  were  two  subtribes  which  spoke  dialects  of  the  mother 
language — the  Eudeve  (Heve  or  Dohema)  and  the  Jova  (Jobal  or 
Ova).  (Doc.  Hist.Mex.,  3d  s.,  iv,  552-553.) 

Orozco  y  Berra  says  (1:343-344)  that  according  to  D.  Francisco 
Velasco  the  Opata  “nacion”  was  subdivided  into  the  Opatas  Teguis, 
Opatas  Teguimas,'  and  Opatas  Coguinachis.  His  quotation  is 
not  strictly  exact,  as  Velasco,  in  the  article  referred  to  (2:705), 
gives  as  divisions  Jovas,  Seguis  (Teguis),  Teguimas,  and  Coguinachis. 
But  as  the  last  three  names  do  not  appear  to  have  had  any  linguistic 
signification,  and  are  not  otherwise  referred  to  as  those  of  subtribes, 
they  may  be  dismissed  from  consideration. 

The  Eudeve  (Heve,  Dohme,  or  Dohema),  forming  the  chief  subtribe, 
inhabited  the  headwaters  of  the  Rio  Hermosillo.  Their  location 
is  given  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s  work  by  pueblos  in  the  region  mentioned. 
The  dialect  of  this  subtribe  shows  considerable  difference  from  that  of 
the  Opata  proper  (Pimentel,  n,  153),  but  not  sufficient  to  consider  it 
otherwise  than  as  a  dialect.  An  anonymous  author  (Doc.  Hist.  Mex., 
3d  s.,  iv,  494,  534)  even  says  the  difference  is  not  greater  than  that 
between  Portuguese  and  Castilian,  or  between  French  and  Provencal. 
Alegre  (ii,  216)  seems  also  to  have  considered  the  dialects  as  not 
widely  different. 

The  Jova  (Jobal  or  Ova)  formed  another  subtribe  speaking  a  lan¬ 
guage  dialectically  different  from  Opata  and  Eudeve,  though  more 
closely  related  to  the  former  than  was  Eudeve.  Although  the  loca¬ 
tion  of  this  subtribe  seems  to  be  pretty  clearly  indicated  by  the  his¬ 
torical  evidence  as  being  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  Opata  territory,  as 
laid  down  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map,  Hamy,  in  his  map  heretofore- 
referred  to,  locates  them  in  the  central  portion  of  the  Tarahumare 
territory  as  drawn  by  him  and  Orozco  y  Berra.  This  appears  to  be 
based  on  the  statement  of  the  latter  author  that  one  of  the  Jova  pue¬ 
blos  was  Santo  Tomas,  which  he  locates  about  the  place  where  Hamy 
places  the  Jovas  on  his  map.  However,  Orozco  y  Berra  also  names  as 
Jova  pueblos  San  Jose  Teopari,  Los  Dolores,  Sahuaripa,  Ponida, 
Arivetzi,  and  San  Mateo  Malzura,  all  of  which  are  in  the  southeast¬ 
ern  part  of  the  Opata  territory  as  given  in  his  map,  which,  as  before 
indicated,  Hamy  has  followed  in  marking  the  tribal  boundaries. 

If  the  Jova  territorv  extended  to  and  included  Santo  Tomas,  then 
the  Opata  territory,  if  this  pueblo  is  correctly  laid  down,  should  be 
extended  more  to  the  southeast  than  it  is  on  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map. 


8 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


This  is  doubtful,  it  being  more  likely  that  this  pueblo  was  peopled 
chiefly  by  Indians  speaking  the  Jova  language,  the  other  pue¬ 
blos  of  that  section  being  Tarahumare.  Hervas  (332)  includes  Santo 
Tomas  among  the  pueblos  or  missions  of  the  Chinipas,  who,  he 
says,  spoke  a  dialect  of  Tarahumare,  or,  as  will  be  shown  farther 
on,  was  not  distinct  therefrom.  His  list,  however,  is  dated  1767. 
As  throwing  some  light  on  this  point  it  is  noticeable  that  Zapata 
(340-343)  states  that  the  mission  at  Tosonachic  in  the  Tarahumare 
territory  directly  north  of  Santo  Tomas,  and  Yepachic  directly  west 
of  the  latter  on  the  border  of  the  Pima  Bajo  territory,  as  given  by 
Orozco  y  Berra,  were  Tarahumare  missions.  But  that  at  Matachic, 
immediately  south  of  Tosonachic  (or  Tesomachic),  and  between  it 
and  Santo  Tomas  and  the  region  immediately  around  it,  he  speaks  of 
as  belonging  to  the  Jova  (or  Ova),  or  at  least  places  it  under  the  head¬ 
ing  “Nacion  de  los  Ovas.” 

It  would  seem  from  these  statements  (in  1678)  that  the  Opata  boun¬ 
dary  should  be  extended  a  little  farther  to  the  southeast  than  given  by 
Orozco  y  Berra,  yet  the  termination  chic  (Matachic)  savors  strongly 
of  Tarahumare  origin,  and  Matachic  is  included  in  the  Tarahumare 
in  the  Handbook  of  American  Indians.  As  will  be  seen  below  and  by 
reference  to  our  map,  a  small  portion  of  the  extreme  eastern  part  of 
the  Lower  Pima  territory,  as  given  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map,  has  been 
included  in  the  Tarahumare  area. 

In  regard  to  the  Batuco,  Cumupa,  Buasdaba,  and  Bapiape,  men¬ 
tioned  by  some  authorities  as  located  within  the  Opata  territory,  see 
notes  below  respecting  the  list  of  names  not  given  on  the  accom¬ 
panying  map. 

Tarahumare 

The  Tarahumare  inhabited  the  sierras,  their  area  embracing  parts 
of  Chihuahua,  Durango,  and  Sonora,  the  Apache  being  on  the  north, 
the  Opata  and  Lower  Pima  on  the  west,  the  Tepehuane  on  the  south, 
and  the  Concho  on  the  east,  and  extending  from  about  latitude  26° 
to  29°  and  longitude  106°  to  108°  W.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:34)  says, 
“Cuenta  liasta  cinco  dialectos  poco  distantes  de  la  lengua  madre,  y  los 
siguientes,  que  se  separan  mas  6  menos  de  su  fuente.”  (The  italics  are 
the  present  author’s.)  Then  he  names  the  following  four:  Varoliio, 
Guazapare,  Pachera,  and  Tubar.  What  is  to  be  understood  by  the 
“five  dialects  but  little  distant  from  the  mother  tongue,”  unless 
the  four  named  are  included,  does  not  clearly  appear  from  his  work; 
at  least  it  seems  that  he  did  not  consider  them  sufficiently  “distant” 
to  regard  them  as  distinct  dialects,  as  he  does  not  follow  up  the 
subject. 

Hervas  (332)  states  that  the  Tarahumara  (the  Tarahumare  country) 
is  divided  into  two  provinces,  called  Tarahumara  alta  and  Tarahu- 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  9 

mara  baja.  To  what  extent  this  is  to  be  considered  as  denoting 
dialectic  differences  can  only  be  inferred  from  the  statement  which 
follows : 

En  aquella  se  habla  la  lengua  chinipa,  de  la  que  en  el  ano  1767  los  jesuitas  tenian 
siete  misiones,  llamadas  de  chinipas  y  de  la  Tarahumara-baxa.  La  lengua  chinipa  parece 
ser  dialecto  de  la  tarahumara,  que  era  la  domiuante  en  las  misiones  delos  jesuitas  en  la 
Tarahumara-alta . 

This  statement  seems  to  imply  that  Tarahumare  proper  was  spoken 
in  the  upper  district  and  Chinipa  in  the  lower  district.  But  as 
there  appears  to  be  some  uncertainty  and  confusion  on  this  point,  it 
will  be  best  to  notice  first  the  dialects  mentioned  above  and  then 
to  return  to  the  subject. 

Orozco  y  Berra  marks  and  colors  separately  on  his  map  the  Tubar, 
Guazipare,  and  Varohio  areas,  locating  them  along  the  southwestern 
boundary  of  the  Tarahumare  territory,  where  it  meets  the  territory 
of  the  Yaqui  group. 

The  earliest  notice  of  the  subtribe  Tubar  (Tubare  or  Tovare)  is 
probably  that  by  Ribas  (117-1 18),  from  whom  we  learn  that  the  group, 
which  was  not  very  numerous,  dwelt  in  rancherias  in  the  sierras  about 
the  headwaters,  of  the  Rio  del  Fuerte  (Rio  Cinaloa).  He  says  the  peo¬ 
ple  spoke  two  languages  totally  distinct  ( totalmente  distintas),  but  does 
not  indicate  their  relationship.  Hervas  (320),  commenting  on  the 
passage,  says  he  infers  from  it  that  a  portion  of  the  Tubar  subtribe 
spoke  the  “ lengua  propia”  (meaning  the  Tarahumare  or  Chinipa)  and 
the  other  part  Tepeliuane,  which  is  probably  the  correct  explanation. 
He  (Hervas)  identifies  the  Chinipa  with  those  he  terms  the  Lower 
Tarahumare.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1 :  323-324),  referring  to  a  manuscript 
in  possession  of  Ramirez,  mentions  Concepcion,  San  Ignacio,  and 
San  Miguel  as  Tubar  pueblos  or  pueblos  in  the  Tubar  region,  and 
states  that  they  were  situated  on  one  of  the  affluents  of  the  Rio  del 
Fuerte,  adding  that  they  spoke  a  particular  idiom  which  was  a  dia¬ 
lect  of  the  Tarahumare,  distinct  from  the  Varohio  and  Guazipare,  and 
called  the  Tubar. 

The  earliest  notice  of  the  Varohio  tribe  or  subtribe  is  also  by  Ribas 
(255),  who  mentions  them  in  connection  with  Chinipa,  Guazipare, 
Temori,  and  Ihio.  He  locates  them  in  the  sierras  toward  the  north, 
between  the  Mayo  and  “Cinaloa”  (Fuerte)  rivers,  which  corresponds 
with  the  position  given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  on  his  map.  Hervas 
(333)  says  they  and  the  Guazipare  were  related  linguistically  to  the 
Chinipa  (Tarahumare).  Zapata  says  (388-390)  that  Varohio  and 
Guazipare  are  the  same  language,  except  that  the  latter  is  more 
nearly  like  Tarahumare.  The  same  writer  (333)  connects  the  Pa- 
chera  with  the  Tarahumare  thus:  “A  tres  leguas  de  San  Jose 
Temaichic  esta  otro  pueblo  y  mucha  gente  en  el  llamada  taraumar 
Pachera.”  The  termination  vhic  of  the  name  Temaichic  indicates 


8347°— Bull.  44—11 - 2 


10 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Tarahumare  origin.  Moreover,  the  pueblo  was  evidently  in  Tara- 
liumare  territory,  though  there  is  no  map  at  hand  on  which  the 
name  appears  in  this  form. 

Returning  now  to  the  Chinipa,  the  following  facts  should  be  noted : 
The  name  has  evidently  been  used  in  different  senses.  Ribas  (95-96) 
mentions  them,  but  chiefly  with  reference  to  the  distinction  between 
them  and  the  Sinaloa  (Yaqui  group),  in  the  expression  "uno  de  los 
pueblos  de  Chinipa/’  which  indicates  that  he  understood  the  name  as 
including  more  than  a  single  pueblo.  At  another  place  (255),  speak¬ 
ing  of  “other  nations  which  people  the  interior  of  the  same  sierra,” 
he  says:  “They  call  these  nations  Chinipas,  Guizipares,  Temoris, 
Ihios,  and  Varohios.” 

Zapata  (386-387)  says  that  the  Partido  de  Santa  Ines  de  Chinipa 
lay  25  leagues  east  of  San  Andres  de  Conicari,  on  the  headwaters  of  the 
Rio  del  Fuerte.  Alluding  to  the  valley  in  which  Chinipa  was  situated, 
he  adds:  “Que  se  compone  de  este  de  Chinipa  y  otro  que  se  le  junta  y 
viene  de  los  tubures  gentiles.  ”  The  language  is  not  mentioned  in  this 
paragraph,  but  in  the  next,  where  Guadalupe  of  the  Boragios  (Varo- 
hios)  is  alluded  to,  it  is  stated  that  the  language  of  this  pueblo  and 
of  Santa  Ines  (Chinipa)  is  Varohio,  and  is  recognized  as  the  same  as 
“Taura”  (Tarahumare),  varying  somewhat  “en  la  gramatica.” 
The  pueblo  of  Chinipa  is  located  on  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map  in  the 
Varohio  territory,  and  in  his  classification  (1:58,  326)  he  includes 
the  people  under  Varohio  as  speaking  that  language.  Alegre  (n,  121) 
locates  the  Chinipa  pueblos  on  the  headwaters  of  the  Rio  del  Fuerte,  as 
does  the  preceding  authority,  but  says  they  were  joined  for  mission 
purposes  with  the  Huites  (which  see,  below).  Again  (174)  he  men¬ 
tions  them  in  the  same  relation  as  Ribas — “entre  Chinipas,  Guaza- 
paris,  Temoris  y  algunas  otras  naciones.” 

Villa-Senor  y  Sanchez  (ii,  399)  speaks  of  Chinipa  as  a  pueblo,  the 
location  being  the  same  as  that  of  Santa  Ines  Chinipa,  above  men¬ 
tioned;  and  in  another  place  (402)  refers  to  the  “Sierra  de  Chinipas.” 

One  fact  worthy  of  notice  in  this  connection  is  that  Padre  Miguel 
Tellecliea, -author  of  Compendio  Gramatical  del  Idioma  Taralmmar 
(1826),  was  “miiiistro  del  Pueblo  de  Chinipas”  and  resided  there  a 
part,  if  not  most,  of  the  time  his  work  was  in  course  of  preparation. 
Is  this  grammar  based  on  the  Varohio  dialect  or  on  the  parent  Tara¬ 
humare  language  ?  Had  the  distinctions  and  differences  disappeared 
at  the  time  he  wrote?  Chinipa  is  omitted  from  the  map  as  not  dis¬ 
tinct  from  Varohio. 

Seri 

The  territory  of  the  Seri  as  laid  down  by  Orozco  y  Berra  extended 
along  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  California  from  Guaymas,  or  rather  the 
Rio  San  Jose,  northward  a  little  above  30°  N.,  including  the  island  of 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  11 


Tiburon,  and  eastward  to  the  territory  of  the  Opata  and  the  Lower 
Pima,  being  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  territory  of  the  Upper 
Pima.  Hamy’s  map,  heretofore  referred  to,  extends  the  northern 
boundary  a  little  farther  north  than  Orozco  y  Berra’s.  The  evidence 
on  which  this  northern  boundary  is  based,  however,  is  not  definitely 
given  by  either  of  these  authors.  Orozco  y  Berra  makes  the  brief 
statement  (1:  354),  “Los  Salineros  hacia  los  confines  de  la  Pimeria 
alta,  ”  and  states  on  the  same  page  that  the  Salineros  speak  an  idiom 
of  Seri,  but  adds  further,  that  in  his  classification  he  counts  but 
“la  principal”  (the  Seri  proper)  and  the  two  dialects,  Guayma  and 
Upanguayma,  showing  that  he  does  not  consider  Tiburon,  T'epoca, 
and  Salineros  as  varying  sufficiently  to  be  regarded  as  dialects. 

Although  the  Guayma  idiom  has  usually  been  considered  a  dialect 
of  Seri  and  so  designated  by  authors,  Hervas  has  described  it  as  dis¬ 
tinct,  and  recently  Piriart,  from  an  examination  made  on  the  ground, 
concludes  it  is  related  to  Pima.  Hervas  says  (318)  that  in  one  of  the 
missions  of  Yaqui  river  named  Belen  were  Indians  of  three  nations — 
the  Yaqui,  Seri,  and  Guayma — which  used  three  different  languages. 
Jose  F.  Ramirez,  discussing  this  statement,  presents  reasons,  given 
in  the  note  below,  for  doubting  its  correctness,  and  shows  such  rela¬ 
tions  between  the  Guayma  and  the  Lower  Pima  as  may  well  explain 
the  result  obtained  by  Pinart,1  but  at  the  same  time  distinguishes 
Guayma  from  Pima.  The  linguistic  position  of  Upanguayma,  which 
is  related  to  the  latter,  is  of  course  determined  by  its  position.  Jose 
Gallardo  (Bancroft,  hi,  704)  says  there  is  but  little  difference  between 
Seri  and  Upanguayma. 

The  Yaqui  Group 
C Synonyms :  Cahita,  Cinaloa,  Sinaloa) 

The  tribes  of  this  group  (often  included  under  the  name  Cahita) 
were  located  chiefly  along  the  middle  and  lower  portions  of  the 
valleys  of  the  Rio  Yaqui,  Rio  Mayo,  and  Rio  del  Fuerte,  extending 

i  “  El  abate  Hervas  dice  (tomo  i,  pagina  318)  que  ‘en  la  mision  de  Belen  habia  tres  naciones  que  se  llama- 
ban  Hiaqui,  Seri  y  Guaima,  que  hablaban  tres  lenguas  difercntes.’  Esta  ultima  parte  de  su  asercion  pre- 
senta  las  siguientes  dificultades.  En  el  tomo  xvi  de  los  manuscritos  del  archivo  general,  hallara  V.  S.  un 
papel  que  se  intitula.  ‘Estado  de  la  provincia  de  Sonora,  con  el  cat&logo  de  sus  pueblos,  iglesias  etc.  y 
Breve  descripcion  de  la  Sonora  Jesuitica,  segun  se  halla  por  el  mes  de  Julio  de  este  ano  de  1730  etc.’  No 
tengo  a  la  vista  esta  Memoria,  mas  por  mis  apuntes,  debe  ser  en  la  parte  donde  el  autor  describe  la  mision 
del  Populo  en  la  que  dice:  ‘que  la  lengua  delos  Seris  es  la  misma  de  los  Guaimas.’  Ademas,  en  un  informe 
que  poseo  del  obispo  de  Sonora,  dirigido  a  D.  Jose  de  Galvez  en  20  de  Setiembre  de  1784,  dice  el  prelado, 
hablando  de  aquella  mision  de  Belen  ‘viven  unidas  dos  naciones  de  indios  Pimas  bajos  y  Guaimas:  estos 
ultimos  desampararon  su  pueblo  por  los  continuos  asaltos  de  los  Seris.  Los  Pimas  usan  su  propio  idioma. 
.  .  .  Los  Guaimas  usan  su  antiguo  idioma,’  etc. 

“  Pasando  ahora  al  examen  de  estas  noticias,  y  haciendolo  en  el  brden  inverso  de  su  esposicion,  tendremos 
como  primer  hecho,  probado  con  la  respetable  autoridad  del  Diocesano,  la  existencia  de  dos  lenguas  diversas 
en  la  mision  de  Belem,  la  de  los  Guaimas  y  la  de  los  Pimas  bajos.  Sigue  en  orden  la  del  misionero  jesuita 
que  dice,  eran  una  misma  la  Guaima  y  la  Seri.  Parece,  pues,  que  nada  puede  contrastar  estos  testimonies 
directos,  y  que  en  consecuencia  hay  una  inexactitud  en  la  asercion  del  abate  Hervas  que  hace  distintasla 
lengua  Seri  y  Guaima.  Aquella  se  esplica  muy  naturalmente  con  solo  reflexionar  que  el  sabio  fildlogo 
advierte,  obtuvo  su  noticia  de  uno  que  decia  haberla  oido  a  un  misionero.” — Bol.  Soc.  Geog.  Estad.  Mex., 
n,  149. 


12  BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY  [bull.  44 

from  the  Gulf  of  California  to  the  sierras.  Their  territory  connected 
on  the  north  with  that  of  the  Lower  Pima  and  on  the  east  with  that 
of  the  Tarahumare.  It  seems  that  on  the  southeast,  as  early  as  the 
sixteenth  century,  they  were  in  contact  chiefly  with  people  speaking 
a  Nahuatl  idiom. 

But  three  dialects — Yaqui,  Mayo,  and  Tehueco — are  usually  men¬ 
tioned.  Pimentel  (i,  453)  says  of  the  group,  “It  is  divided  into  three 
dialects,  Yaqui,  Mayo,  and  Tehueco. ”  Buelna  (x)  limits  them  to  the 
same  three,  and  Balbi  gives  Zuaque,  Mayo,  and  Yaqui.  In  his  classi¬ 
fied  list  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:58)  names  Yaqui,  Mayo,  Tehueco,  and 
Vacoregue,  and  Brinton  (3:  125)  names  the  Tehueco,  Zuaque,  Mayo, 
and  Yaqui  as  subtribes.  Hervas  (322)  concludes  from  his  study  of 
Ribas’s  work  that  the  following  dialects  were  recognized :  Yaqui  (which 
he  makes  equivalent  to  Sinaloa),  Zuaque,  Mayo,  Ocoroni,  Tehueco, 
Conicari,  Chicorata,  Cavenata,  Ahome,  and  Guazave.  (As  to  Ocoroni, 
Conicari,  Chicorata,  and  Ahome,  see  notes  below.)  Cavenata  is 
merely  the  name  of  a  pueblo  given  nowhere  else  as  a  dialect. 

As  there  appears  to  be  no  difference  of  opinion  in  regard  to  Yaqui, 
Mayo,  and  Tehueco  being  dialects  of  the  group,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  refer  only  to  the  early  historical  evidence  regarding  localities. 

As  it  has  been  suggested  by  Doctor  Kroeber  that  the  term  Caliita 
is  merely  the  native  word  meaning  “nothing/’  and  is  therefore 
inappropriate  as  an  ethnic  designation,  the  name  “Yaqui  group” 
(from  that  of  the  best  known  tribe)  has  been  adopted  as  more 
appropriate. 

The  Indians  using  the  Yaqui  dialect  are  almost  universally  located 
by  our  authorities  on  the  Yaqui  river;  there  are,  however,  some 
exceptions  which  will  be  referred  to.  The  first  notice  of  them  is 
probably  that  in  the  Segunda  Relacion  Anonima  of  the  journey  of 
Nuno  de  Guzman,  between  1530  and  1540. 1  It  is  stated  in  this 
(ii,  300-302)  that  after  passing  over  the  Rio  de  Tamachola,  which 
appears  to  be  the  Fuerte  (as  Alegre,  i,  231,  implies),  and  traveling 
30  leagues,  they  came  to  a  river  called  Mayo  on  which  lived  a  tribe 
(“gente”)  of  the  same  “arte”  and  same  language  as  those  of  the 
Sinaloa.  Having  passed  on  (northward),  they  came  to  another 
stream  called  Yaquimi,  well  peopled,  “y  los  pueblos  del  arte  de  los  de 
Cinaloa  y  de  Mayon.”  The  writer  adds  on  the  next  page,  “Desde  el 
Rio  de  Petatlan  hasta  el  de  Yaquimi  es  todo  una  gente.”  That  the 
Petatlan  is  the  same  river  as  that  at  present  named  Sinaloa  is 
affirmed  by  Alegre  (i,  231). 

As  there  is  some  confusion  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  names  Sinaloa 
(or  Cinaloa)  and  Zuaque  as  applied  to  tribes,  and  also  some  confusion  in 
regard  to  the  location’ of  some  of  the  tribes,  it  seems  advisable  first  to 
give  the  evidence  relating  thereto.  Hervas  (323 ) ,  quoting  the  following, 


i  In  Colec.  Doc.  Hist.  Mex.;  see  Icazbalceta  in  the  Bibliography. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  13 

“El  P.  Christobal  cle  Villalba  [Villalta]  (lib.  5,  cap.  15,  p.  324)  sabia 
excelentemente  la  lengua  cle  los  Maquis,  y  propia  de  los  cinaloas,” 
adds  “por  lo  que  lengua  Maqui,  y  lengua  cinaloa  es  una  misma  cosa.” 
On  the  preceding  page  (322)  he  also  identifies  the  Cinaloa  and  Hiaqui 
(Yaqui)  as  one  and  the  same —  “Cinaloa  6  Hiaqui.”  Now  Ribas 
(284)  locates  the  Hiaquis  on  the  lower  portion  of  the  “Rio  Hiaqui  ” 
(en  las  doze  ultimas  a  la  mar),  but  places  the  Cinaloas  on  the  Fuerte, 
or,  as  he  calls  it,  Rio  Cinaloa  or  Rio  Zuaque.  He  says  (142)  the  river 
is  called  by  various  names,  sometimes  the  Cinaloa,  sometimes  Tegueco, 
and  sometimes  Zuaque;  that  the  four  principal  nations  on  this 
river  are  the  “Cinaloas,  Teguecos,  Zuaques,  y  Ahornes,”  and  that  the 

Cinaloa  dwell  in  the  mountains  at  the  head  of  the  river.  It  is  evident 

« 

from  this  and  many  other  similar  statements  in  his  work  that  Ribas 
considered  the  “Cinaloas”  as  distinct  from  the  Hiaqui  (Yacpii),  the 
Mayo,  Teliueco,  and  Zuaque,  though  linguistically  related  to  them. 
If  there  was  a  tribe  of  this  name,  which  is  possible,  it  is  most  likely 
they  were  absorbed  by  the  other  tribes  on  the  upper  Rio  del  Fuerte. 
Therefore  Hervas’s  identification  of  the  Sinaloas  with  the  Yaquis  is  an 
evident  mistake,  as  Orozco  y  Berra  points  out.  As  to  the  application 
of  the  name 'Cinaloa  by  Ribas  to  the  Rio  del  Fuerte  there  is  this 
evidence.  Alegre  (i,  230)  says — 

El  Zuague,  a  cuya  rivera  austral  estuvo  en  otro  tiempo  la  villa  de  S.  Juan  Bautista 
de  Carapoa,  que  despues  fabricado  el  fuerte  de  Montesclaros,  se  Uamo  Rio  del  Fuerte , 
y  el  padre  Andres  Perez  [Ribas]  llama  por  antonomasia  el  rio  de  Sinaloa. 

The  geographical  position  as  given  by  Ribas  is  sufficient  without 
anv  other  evidence  to  show  that  he  used  the  name  Cinaloa  to  desig- 
nate  the  Rio  del  Fuerte  and  not  the  stream  which  now  bears  the 
name  Sinaloa.  Nothwithstanding  this  and  abundant  other  evidence 
that  the  Yaqui  and  the  Mayo  resided  on  the  rivers  that  bear  their 
respective  names,  and  the  Tehueco  and  Zuaque  on  the  Fuerte  river, 
Bancroft  (i,  608)  says,  “The  Zuaques  have  their  villages  between  the 
Mayo  and  Yaqui  rivers,”  and  so  locates  them  on  his  map  (471). 
Possibly  he  refers  to  a  more  recent  date,  though  apparently  not. 
Hamy,  probably  by  mistake,  places  on  his  map  the  “Hiaquis”  on 
the  Rio  Mayo  and  the  Mayo  on  the  Rio  del  Fuerte. 

That  the  Yaqui,  Mayo,  and  Tehueco  spoke  dialects  of  the  same 
language  is  now  well  known  from  historical  evidence,  vocabularies,  etc. 
However,  the  following  proof  from  older  writers  is  added:  “La  nacion 
Hiaqui  y  por  consecueDcia  la  Mayo  y  del  Fuerte  .  .  .  que  en  la 
sustancia  son  una  misma  y  de  una  propria  lengua”  (Cancio,  2:  246), 
“Esta  tribu  [Mayos]  es  de  la  misma  raza  que  la  del  Yaqui,  y  solo  se 
distingue  por  el  titulo  de  su  rio.  Su  idioma  [Mayo  and  Yaqui]  por 
consiguiente  es  el  mismo,  con  la  diferencia  de  unas  cuantas  voces” 
(Velasco,  1:302).  Pimentel  (i,  485)  says  the  “Caliita”  language  is 
divided  into  three  principal  dialects — Mayo,  Yaqui,  and  Tehueco; 


14 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


the  others  are  secondary.  Consult  also  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:35);  Buelna 
(x.),  et  al. 

Investigation  has  failed  to  disclose  how  or  why  the  name  Cahita 
came  into  use,  and  why  it  was  so  seldom  applied  until  in  compara¬ 
tively  recent  times.  Even  Hervas’s  work,  which  was  published  in 
the  year  1800,  makes  no  mention  of  it.  Yet  it  must  have  been  known 
early  in  the  seventeenth  century  as  the  Arte  de  la  Lengua  Cahita 
por  un  Padre'  de  la  Compania  de  Jesus,  republished  by  Buelna  in 
1891,  and  believed  to  have  been  written  bv  Juan  Bautista  de  Ve- 
lasco  (born  1562,  died  1649),  mentions  it  and  entitles  his  “Arte” 
as  that  of  the  “Lengua  Cahita.”  In  his  preface  he  says,  “Toda 
esta  usa  de  un  mismo  idioma,  los  Hiaquis,  los  Mayos  y  los  Thehue- 
cos,  pero  se  diferencian  en  el  modo.”  Juan  Ortiz  Zapata  (393)  uses 
the  name  (see  below). 

The  lingustic  relation  of  the  Mayo  to  the  tribes  on  the  Sinaloa 
was  noticed  by  the  first  Spanish  explorers  of  this  region,  as  the  fact 
is  expressly  mentioned  in  the  Segunda  Relacion  of  the  journey 
of  Nuno  de  Guzman.1  While  Ribas  constantly  joins  together 
the  Cinaloa,  Zuaque,  Tehueco,  and  Aliome  of  the  Rio  del  Fuerte; 
and  speaks  of  their  similarity  in  customs,  no  reference  to  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  language  of  the  Cinaloas  to  the  other  three  tribes  has 
been  found  in  his  work.  Juan  Ortiz  Zapata  (393),  speaking  of 
the  mission  or  Partido  de  la  Concepcion  de  Vaca,  says  it  was  on 
the  banks  of  the  “Carapoa”  and  that  its  natives  spoke  the  Cahita 
language — “la  lengua  es  caita.”  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:332)  says  that 
this  mission  (Vaca  or  Baca)  pertained  to  the  Sinaloas,  and  that 
the  ancient  villages  of  Carapoa,  Savirijoa,  and  San  Jose  Charay 
corresponded  to  the  “Tehuecos.”  Hrdlicka  (1:59)  makes  Baca- 
bacli  a  Mayo  settlement,  which  is  given  as  a  probable  synonym 
of  Baca  (Vaca)  in  the  Handbook  of  the  American  Indians,  though 
most  likely  different,  as  Baca  (Vaca)  was  on  the  Rio  del  Fuerte. 
That  tribes  along  the  river  spoke  languages  allied  to  Yaqui  and 
Mayo  has  been  shown  and  is  asserted  by  Ribas  (237);  this  makes 
them  dialects  of  the  Yaqui  group.  But  are  Cinaloa,  Zuaque,  and 
Tehueco  to  be  considered  synonyms  or  names  of  different  dialects? 
The  earliest  original  authorities  do  not  make  this  clear. 

Alegre  (n,  10)  contends  that  Zuaque  and  Tehueco  are  one  and 
the  same  language — “de  ser  todos  de  una  misma  lengua.”  Buelna 
(x)  says  that  Tehueco  was  the  native  and  current  idiom  among 
the  three  indigenous  tribes  living  on  the  banks  of  the  Rio  del 
Fuerte,  the  most  northerly  of  those  actualty  in  the  state  of  Sinaloa; 
the  Sinaloa  who  inhabit  the  pueblos  of  Baca,  Toro,  and  Sinaloita, 
on  the  river  above  the  village  of  Fuerte;  the  Tehueco  who  lived  in 
said  village,  previously  called  Carapoa,  and  in  the  pueblos  of 


1  In  Colec.  Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  n,  300;  see  Icazbalceta  in  the  Bibliography. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  15 

Tehueco,  Sivirijoa,  and  Charay,  below  the  same;  and  the  Zuaque,  who 
were  established  still  lower  down  in  the  pueblos  of  Mochicahuy  and 
San  Miguel  de  Zuaque.  He  therefore  makes  Tehueco,  Sinaloa, 
and  Zuaque  one  and  the  same  dialect,  though  different  tribes  or  sub¬ 
tribes.  Orozco  y  Berra  makes  Sinaloa  and  Cahita  equivalent,  or 
one  and  the  same  idiom,  but  distinct  from  Tehueco  and  Zuaque, 
which  he  considers  identical.  “The  language  which  Ribas  and  some 
other  missionaries  and  writers  call  Cinaloa,  and  which  TIervas  names 
Yaqui,  is  the  idiom  which  properly  is  known  as  Caliita.”  Quoting 
from  Balbi  (table  xxxii)  the  following — 

Cinaloa  is  spoken  in  the  provinces  of  Cinaloa,  of  Hostimuri,  and  in  the  southern 
part  of  Sonora,  in  the  intendency  of  that  name.  This  language  embraces  three  princi¬ 
pal  dialects,  quite  different:  the  Zuaque,  spoken  in  the  southern  part  of  the  province 
of  Sinaloa  and  in  other  places;  the  Mayo  spoken  along  the  Mayo  river  in  Hostimuri 
and  in  Sonora-  the  Yaqui  or  Iliaqui,  spoken  along  the  Yaqui  river  in  the  province  of 
Sonora — 

he  adds  (356) : 

We  cannot  agree  with  the  greater  part  of  these  assertions.  According  to  the  gram¬ 
mar  of  this  language,  “no  se  llama  Sinaloa  sino  Cahita,”  and  contains  three  dialects 
[Mayo,  YaquiJ  and  the  Tehueco  and  also  Zuaque  which  is  used  in  Sinaloa  by  the 
Indians  of  the  banks  of  the  Pvio  del  Fuerte. 

Doctor  Brinton  (3:  125)  gives  Tehueco,  Zuaque,  Mayo,  and  Yaqui 
as  subtribes  of  the  Cahita,  but  omits  the  Zuaque  from  his  list  (3:  134). 
In  the  midst  of  this  confusion  it  is  the  author’s  conclusion  that  per¬ 
haps  Orozco  y  Berra  is  nearest  right  in  identifying  Zuaque  and 
Tehueco  as  one  and  the  same  dialect,  though  distinct  tribes. 

Orozco  y  Berra  (1:35)  says  that  about  the  mouth  of  the  Rio  del 
Fuerte  were  the  Ahome,  and  along  the  coast  south  of  it  were  the 
Vacoregue,  the  Batucari,  the  Comopori,  and  the  Guazave:  of  the 
same  family  and  idiom  as  the  Cahita,  the  chief  dialect  being  that 
named  Guazave  or  Vacoregue.  (Care  must  be  taken  to  distingush 
between  Comuripa  (or  Comoripa)  of  the  Pima  group  and  Como¬ 
pori  of  the  Yaqui  group.)  He  says  Balbi  conjectures  that  Ahome 
and  Comopori  were  quite  diverse,  or  tongues  related  to  Gua¬ 
zave.  This  he  declares  is  not  exact,  as  all  these  pueblos  spoke  the 
same  idiom,  and  there  was  no  particular  Ahome  or  Comopori. 
In  his  classification  (1:58)  he  gives  Vacoregue  and  Guazave  as 
synonymous  and  as  spoken  by  the  Vacoregue,  Guazave,  Ahome, 
Batucari,  Comopori,  and  Zuaque.  The  introduction  of  the  last 
name  here  must  be  a  mistake,  as  in  his  classification  (1:  58) 
he  places  it  under  Tehueco;  possibly  it  refers  here  to  a  few  Zuaque 
who  lived  among  the  Vacoregue  and  adopted  their  language.  This 
author  appears  to  have  worked  this  out  by  taking  up  the  scat¬ 
tered  statements  of  the  original  authorities  in  regard  to  the  lan¬ 
guages  spoken  in  the  different  pueblos  and  missions,  which  it  is  not 


16 


BUREAU  OP  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


necessary  to  give  in  this  preliminary  sketch.  It  may  be  stated, 
however,  that  Ribas  (145)  says  the  language  of  the  Ahome  was 
the  same  as  that  of  the  Guazave,  and  different  from  that  of  the 
Zoe  (which  is  referred  to  farther  on).  Hervas  (320)  says  the  Ahome 
spoke  a  dialect  of  Hiaqui  (he  uses  this  name  Hiaqui  as  equivalent 
to  Cinaloa;  see  Orozco  y  Berra,  1:  34),  and  the  same  as  that  spoken 
by  the  Guazave.  Ribas  (153)  says  the  Comopori  spoke  the  same 
language  as  the  Ahome.  Brinton  is  therefore  in  error  in  uniting 
the  Ahome  with  the  Pima,  as  they  and  the  other  pueblos  mentioned 
in  this  connection,  except  Zuaque,  spoke  the  Vacoregue  dialect. 

The  names  Oguera  (Ohuera),  Cahuimeto,  and  Nio,  denoting  three 
dialects  marked  by  Orozco  y  Berra  on  his  map,  along  the  southern 
border  of  the  Cahita  territory,  near  the  Vacoregue,  are  placed  in  his 
list  of  extinct  idioms  (1:61).  Comopori  indicates  a  supposed  sub¬ 
tribe,  but  is  not  represented  on  his  map.  Chicorata  and  Basopa 
are  given  in  his  list  of  languages,  and  are  mentioned  (1:334)  as  on 
the  Sinaloa  river  7  leagues  east  of  Ohuera;  their  languages  are  dis¬ 
tinct  and  the  two  peoples  speak  “el  Mexicano.” 

Of  the  Comopori,  Orozco  y  Berra  speaks  as  follows  (1:35) : 

About  the  embouchure  of  the  Rio  del  Fuerte  live  the  Ahomes,  and  thence  toward 
the  south  along  the  coast  the  Vacoregues,  Batucaris,  Comoporis,  and  the  Guazaves; 
.  of  the  same  family  of  the  Cahitas,  the  idiom,  the  dialect  of  the  principal  one,  named 
the  Guazave  or  Vacoregue.  Balbi  conjectures  that  the  Ahome  and  the  Comopori  are 
very  diverse  dialects  or  sister  languages  of  the  Guazave.  This  is  not  correct;  all  the 
pueblos  spoke  the  same  idiom,  and  there  was  no  particular  Ahome  or  Comopori. 

This  disposes  of  Comopori.  As  the  Ahome  spoke  the  same  lan¬ 
guage  as  the  Vacoregue  and  Guazave,  the  last  two,  so  far  as  language 
is  concerned,  are,  in  fact,  synonymous  terms. 

Cahuimeto  and  Ohuera  are  placed  by  Orozco  y  Berra  in  his  list  of 
extinct  languages.  His  evidence  for  considering  these  as  distinct 
and  as  once  spoken  in  the  area  he  has  marked  on  his  map  appears 
to  have  been  obtained  chiefly  from  Zapata  (407).  However,  Orozco 
y  Berra  makes  a  mistake  in  his  notes  (1:334),  referring  to  Ribas.1 
It  is  there  stated  that  six  or  seven  leagues  southeast  of  the  pueblo 
of  Sinaloa  was  the  pueblo  of  Ohuera,  in  which  and  in  the  vicinity 
thereof  were  spoken  two  languages,  “  distintas,”  called  Cahuimeto 
and  Ohuera,  though  at  the  time  Zapata  wrote  (1678)  the  Mexican 
(Aztec)  language  had  already  come  into  general  use,  ultimately,  as  we 
may  suppose,  displacing  them,  as  they  appear  to  have  been  extinct  when 
Orozco  y  Berra  wrote  his  Geografia  (1857-1863),  and  also  probably 
when  Alegre  wrote  his  Historia  (1766-1773),  as  he  makes  no  mention 
of  them,  though  he  speaks  of  missions  and  Indians  of  the  region  re¬ 
ferred  to.  As  they  resided  on  the  Sinaloa  (not  Rio  del  F uerte,  but  Sin¬ 
aloa  of  modern  maps)  and  along  the  southeastern  border  of  the  Cahita 


1  The  pages  he  cites  are  those  of  Doe.  Hist.  Mex.,  4th  ser.,  ill. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  17 

territory  of  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map,  where  it  abuts  on  the  Mexican 
(Aztec)  territory,  the  two  languages,  which  seem  to  have  been  cog¬ 
nate,  may  have  been,  and  in  all  probability  were,  idioms  of  the 
Yaqui  group.  Although  the  evidence  on  this  point  is  not  positive, 
they  were  probably  in  the  territory  of  the  Yaqui  group. 

Orozco  y  Berra  seems  to  be  justified  by  the  evidence  in  placing 
Nio  on  his  map  as  a  distinct  idiom,  though  extinct.  It  is  stated  by 
Zapata  (404-405)  that  a  league  and  a  half  northeast  of  San  Pedro 
Guazave  was  the  pueblo  of  San  Ignacio  de  Nio,  in  which  the  language 
spoken  was  “ particular,”  called  Nio,  though  Mexican  was  also  in 
common  use.  The  only  subsequent  mention  found  is  that  by  Alegre 
(i,  294),  who  states  that  Padre  Mendez  commended  the  pueblos  and 
languages  of  the  Ocoroiri  [Ocoroni],  Nio,  and  some  others  which  he 
had  held,  to  the  charge  of  Padre  Tapia.  This  evidence,  though  direct, 
is  somewhat  slender,  yet  the  name  has  been  placed  within  the  Cahita 
territory  on  the  map  accompanying  this  volume,  surrounded,  how¬ 
ever,  with  a  narrow  line. 

The  evidence  in  regard  to  Basopa,  which  Orozco  y  Berra  places  in 
his  list  of  languages,  is  very  meager,  the  only  notice,  so  far  as  known, 
being  the  statement  by  Zapata  (408)  to  the  effect  that  five  leagues 
to  the  north  [of  Concepcion  de  Chicorato]  is  the  pueblo  of  San  Ignacio 
deChicuris.  “The  language  is  in  part  Tepehuana  and  in  part  Basopa, 
which  is  that  which  is  commonly  spoken.”  Zapata  says,  further, 
(407)  that  in  Concepcion  de  Chicorato  the  natives  are  divided  into 
two  parties  which  speak  distinct  languages,  “the  Chicurata,  and 
the  Basopa.”  This  appears  to  be  the  only  authority  on  which  Orozco 
y  Berra  bases  the  introduction  of  these  two  names  into  his  list  of  lan¬ 
guages.  Both  are  extinct. 

ZoE  AND  TePAHUE 

Zoe  and  Baimena,  both  extinct  languages,  can  best  be  considered 
together,  as  it  seems  they  were  related. 

The  Zoe  occupied  a  limited  region  on  the  eastern  border  of  the 
territory  of  the  Yaqui  group,  on  the  headwaters  of  the  Bio  del  Fuerte 
adjoining  the  Tubar  area.  The  tribe  was  a  small  one,  speaking  a 
language  of  its  own.  The  Baimena,  who  joined  them  on  the  south, 
probably  spoke  a  dialect  of  the  same  tongue.  Ribas  (208)  says  the 
Zoe  were  mountain  Indians,  residing  about  the  headwaters  of  the 
Rio  Sinaloa  (del  Fuerte)  in  the  skirts  of  the  sierra,  and  spoke 
a  language  different  from  that  of  the  Sinaloas.  He  also  states, 
page  145  (“tienen  tambien  amistad  los  Ahomes,  y  parentesco,  y 
son  de  la  misma  lengua  con  los  Gua^aues”),  that  they  maintained 
friendly  relations  with  the  Ahome,  and  were  related  to  and  spoke 
the  same  language  as  the  Guazave,  who,  as  has  been  shown  above, 
were  related  to  the  Yaqui  group  and  spoke  a  dialect  of  their  lan- 


18 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


guage.  Ribas  also  (145)  mentions  a  tradition  that  this  tribe  came 
from  the  north  with  the  Ahome,  and,  although  speaking  a  different 
language  and  occupying  localities  widely  separated,  maintained  con¬ 
stant  friendship.  As  the  language  was  still  spoken  as  late  as  1678, 
after  the  missionaries  had  established  themselves  in  that  section,  and 
probably  obtained  this  tradition  from  them,  it  is  possibly  reliable. 

According  to  Zapata  (396),  the  Baimena  (or  Baitrena,  as  the  name 
appears  there)  occupied  the  pueblo  of  Santa  Catalina  de  Baitrena, 
situated  some  six  leagues  southeast  of  San  Jose  del  Toro,  the  head  of 
the  partido,  and  spoke  a  language  somewhat  different  from  that  of 
the  Troe  (Zoe).  The  latter  resided  in  a  neighboring  pueblo  bearing 
their  own  name  and,  like  that  of  the  Baimena,  bordering  the  Tubar 
(“confinan  tambien  con  los  Tubares”).  The  padre  who  ministered 
to  these  pueblos  at  the  time  Ribas  wrote  (1617-1640)  was  Jose  de 
Tapia. 

The  evidence  appears  to  warrant,  therefore,  in  the  absence  of  vocabu¬ 
laries,  the  acceptance  of  Zoe  as  a  distinct  idiom  and  Baimena  as  identi¬ 
cal  or  closely  related  to  it.  There  is,  perhaps,  justification  for  consid¬ 
ering  both  as  dialects  of  the  Yaqui  group,  or  at  least  Nahuatlan,  and 
they  are  so  marked  in  the  List  of  Linguistic  Families  and  Tribes. 
Their  area  is  designated  on  the  map  accompanying  this  paper. 

The  territory  in  which  the  Tepahue  (Tepave),  Conicari,  and 
Macoyahui  dialects  are  said  to  have  been  spoken  is  situated  on  the 
northern  border  of  the  territory  of  the  Yaqui  group  where  it  meets 
that  of  the  Lower  Pima  and  the  Tarahumare. 

According  to  Zapata  (385),  the  language  spoken  in  the  pueblo  of 
Asuncion  de  Tepave  (Tepaiie  or  Tepahue),  situated  five  leagues  north¬ 
east  of  Conicari,  was  “particular,”  and  was  known  as  “Tepave” 
(Tepahue) ;  this  was  different  from  that  of  the  other  pueblos  (Conicari 
and  Macoyahui),  though  the  latter  people  understood  the  Tepahue 
tongue  and  also  that  of  the  Yaqui  group,  but  did  not  speak  it.  All 
three  dialects  are  included  by  Orozco  y  Berra  in  the  territory  he 
marks  “Tepahue”  on  his  map,  in  the  fork  of  the  upper  Mayo  river. 
Ribas  (253)  speaks  of  them  as  friends  of  the  Tehueco,  and  adds  (265) 
that  the  pueblo  of  Conicari  was  distant  from  Chinipa  sixteen  leagues 
[west].  Zapata  (384)  says  that  the  language  spoken  at  this  peublo 
is  “  particular,”  but  that  some  of  the  inhabitants  are  Mayo  “en  la 
nacion  y  en  la  lengua.” 

The  pueblo  of  Asuncion  de  Macoyahui,  in  which  the  Macoyahui  lan¬ 
guage  was  spoken,  was  situated  about  seven  leagues  north  of  Conicari 
(Zapata,  386),  though  Orozco  y  Berra  on  his  map  places  it  west  of 
the  latter  pueblo.  The  language,  according  to  Zapata,  was  “particu¬ 
lar” — “la  lengua  es  particular  macoyahui  con  que  son  tres  las  lenguas 
de  este  partido” — these  are  Conicari,  Tepahue,  and  Macoyahui. 
Although  they  were  extinct  at  the  time  Orozco  y  Berra  wrote  his 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  19 

Geografia  (about  1860),  they  were  in  existence  and  use  at  the  time 
Zapata  wrote  his  Relacion  (1678).  The  Macoyahui  were  also  known 
by  the  names  Cue  and  Tecayagui.  It  is  safe,  perhaps,  to  assume 
that  these  languages  were  related  to  one  another,  though  this  is  not 
stated,  nor  is  there  anything  on  record,  so  far  as  ascertained,  by  which 
to  determine  whether  they  were  related  to  any  language  of  the  sur¬ 
rounding  tribes.  The  only  indications  given  on  this  point  are  that 
the  Tepahue  were  friends  of  the  Tehueco,  and  that  some  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Conicari  were  of  the  Mayo  tribe.  These  facts  suggest 
relationship  to  the  Yaqui  group. 

Tepehuane 
{Synonym:  Tepeguane) 

The  Tepehuane  occupied  the  country  mainly  in  Durango,  imme¬ 
diately  south  of  the  Taraliumare,  chiefly  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the 
Sierra  Madre,  from  the  twenty-fourth  nearly  to  the  twenty-seventh 
degree  of  north  latitude.  Arlegui  (187)  says  it  extended  from  the 
Sierra  delMezquital  up  to  the  Parral.  According  to  Alegre  (i,  319)  it 
extended  from  a  little  less  than  the  twenty-fifth  to  the  twenty- 
seventh  degree  of  north  latitude,  touching  the  Tarahumare  region 
at  the  north. 

The  language  does  not  appear  to  have  been  divided  into  any  well- 
marked  dialects.  Pimentel  (n,  63)  says  it  consisted  of  various 
dialects,  but  the  differences  seem  to  have  been  too  slight  to  receive 
any  special  notice.  Orozco  y  Berra  mentions  none.  It  is  possible 
that  Acaxee  and  cognate  idioms  were  related  to  it. 

Acaxee 

For  the  reasons  given  below,  it  has  been  decided  to  bring  together 
under  this  tribal  heading  the  four  following  names,  which 
Orozco  y  Berra  and  other  writers  have  treated  as  those  of  separate 
tribes,  namely,  Acaxee,  Jijime  (Xixime),  Tebaca,  and  Sabaibo. 

The  four  small  tribes,  or  so-called  tribes,  speaking  these  languages 
formed  a  connected  group  surrounded  on  the  north,  east,  and  south¬ 
east  by  the  Tepehuane  and  on  the  west  and  southwest  by  the  exten¬ 
sion  of  the  Mexican  group  northward  along  the  western  coast.  Their 
country  lay  chiefly  in  the  high  and  rugged  sierras.  There  seems  to 
be  little  or  no  dou'bt,  from  the  evidence  given  below,  that  they  spoke 
closely  related  dialects,  some  so-called  dialects,  however,  being 
apparently  identical.  It  also  appears  that  in  addition  to  their  native 
dialects,  spoken  among  themselves,  all  used  the  Mexican  language  in 
their  intercourse  with  others.1 


1  The  term  “Mexican,”  as  used  here  and  elsewhere  in  this  paper  when  referring  to  language,  is  to  be  under¬ 
stood  in  the  sense  in  which  Orozco  y  Berra  uses  the  term  “  Mexicano;”  that  is  to  say,  it  includes  the  central 
or  strictly  Nahuatl  or  Aztec  group,  the  particular  dialect  of  this  northward  extension  being  unknown. 


20 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Ribas  says  (491)  the  Sabaibo  spoke  the  same  language  as  the 
Acaxee,  and  that  the  Jijimes  also  spoke  the  same  language  (522). 
Alegre  says  (i,  422)  the  Sabaibo,  though  a  distinct  nation,  spoke  the 
same  idiom  as  the  Acaxee.  Zapata  (414-416),  speaking  of  the  mis¬ 
sions  in  the  Partido  de  San  Martin  de  Atotonilco,  says  Tebaca  was 
spoken  in  some  and  Acaxee  in  others  when  talking  among  themselves, 
but  that  all  used  the  Mexican  language.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1  :  334) 
asserts  the  same  thing,  and  states  also  on  the  same  page  that  Tebaca 
was  distinct  from  Acaxee,  but  related  to  it.  On  the  whole  he  seems 
to  place  all  these  dialects  in  his  “Mexicano”  (1  :  12-13),  or  at  least 
includes  the  people  in  the  Mexican  (Nahuatlan)  family  in  the  limited 
sense  of  his  classification.  It  is  true  that,  in  the  paragraph  indicated, 
he  refers  only  to  Acaxee,  yet,  as  he  holds  that  the  other  three  are 
related  to  it,  all  must  be  classed  together. 

Hervas  (on  what  ground  does  not  appear)  says  that  the  Jijime 
language,  which  is  spoken  in  the  province  of  Topia,  appears  to  be 
different  from  Acaxee  (330),  “and  consequently  from  the  other  dia¬ 
lects  of  the  Zacateco.”  This  would  imply  that  Acaxee  and  other 
allied  idioms,  exclusive  of  Jijime,  were  dialects  of  the  Zacateco  lan¬ 
guage.  Referring  to  this  supposition  on  the  part  of  Hervas,  Orozco  y 
Berra  (1  :  13)  states  that  it  is  unsupported  by  any  works  he  has 
examined. 

As  Acaxee  appears  to  be  the  most  important  of  these  idioms,  it  is 
concluded  best  to  depart  from  Orozco  y  Berra’s  plan  to  the  extent  of 
including  the  entire  group  under  this  name  and  to  mark  the  area 
occupied  by  them  accordingly. 

Several  other  so-called  tribes  or  “naciones”  are  mentioned  as  re¬ 
siding  in  the  immediate  region  now  under  consideration,  as  the 
Papudo,  Tecaya,  Vaimoa  (or  Baimoa),  Topia,  Hina,  and  Hume.  The 
first  three  appear  to  have  been  considered  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:319) 
as  but  mere  divisions  of  the  Acaxee,  and  the  last  two  (1:320)  as  divi¬ 
sions  of  the  Jijime.  Alegre  (i,  379-380)  mentions  the  “Papudos”  and 
“Tecayas”  as  belonging  to  the  mission  of  San  Andres  (Topia),  but 
says  nothing  in  regard  to  their  language.  Turning  to  Zapata  (306), 
the  statement  is  found  that  the  pueblos  of  this  mission  spoke  various 
languages,  some  Sabaibo,  some  Acaxee  (“Aiage”),  and  others  Jijime, 
but  no  mention  is  made  of  Papudo,  Tecaya,  or  Vaimoa  (Baimoa). 
As  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  other  evidence  on  this  point, 
these  three  names — Papudo,  Tecaya,  and  Vaimoa — may  be  dismissed 
as  not  denoting  idioms. 

Orozco  y  Berra  makes  Topia  a  synonym  of  Acaxee.  In  this  he 
seems  to  be  substantially  correct,  as  it  appears  to  be  a  geographical 
term  designating  the  section  in  which  the  Acaxee  were  chiefly  lo¬ 
cated.  Ribas  (531)  says  the  Acaxee  nation  was  the  principal  (head)  of 
the  two  missions  of  Topia  and  San  Andres.  Hervas  (327)  speaks  of 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  21 


Topia  as  another  language  or  dialect  of  the  group,  which  idea  Vater 
has  carried  into  his  Mithridates  (hi,  pt.  3,  138-139),  though  admitting 
relationship  with  Acaxee.  Balbi  makes  it  distinct  from  the  latter; 
but  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:319)  differs  wholly  from  this  opinion,  con¬ 
sidering  the  two  as  the  same  language.  He  quotes  (1:314)  manu¬ 
script  authority  showing  Topia  to  be  merely  the  name  of  a  province 
or  district. 

Ahumada  (96),  writing  in  1608,  makes  the  Hume  a  “nacion77 
distinct  from  the  Jijime,  though  speaking  the  same  language.  Bibas 
(562)  says  these  Indians  inhabit  the  highest  part  of  the  sierra  as 
one  goes  eastward.  Alegre  (n,  199)  also  calls  the  Hume  a  “nacion77 
and  says  the  name  was  given  to  them  from  the  configuration  of  the 
natural  defenses  of  their  country.  Hervas  (327)  expresses  the  opinion 
that  the  Hume  (Huime,  as  he  writes  it)  were  related  to  the  Jijime. 
Orozco  y  Berra  also  holds  that  both  the  Hume  and  Hina  were  related 
to,  or  rather  were  offshoots  of,  the  Jijime. 

Alegre,  speaking  of  the  Hina  (ii,  195),  says  they  inhabited  the  most 
profound  breaks  (“ profundisimas  quebradas77)  of  the  center  of  the 
sierra  and  the  margin  of  the  Rio  Piaztla,  and  spoke  a  diverse  lan¬ 
guage.  Notwithstanding  this  evidence,  Orozco  y  Berra,  who  per¬ 
haps  had  additional  data,  although  recognizing  the  Hume  and  the 
Hina  as  separate  or  distinct  peoples,  and  giving  them  in  his  list  of 
tribes,  omits  them  from  his  list  of  languages,  thereby  expressing  his 
belief  that  they  did  not  speak  distinct  idioms.  It  is  considered 
safest  to  follow  his  example. 

In  this  connection  it  maybe  as  well  to  refer  to  the  Huite.  Ribas 
(207)  says  their  language  was  different  from  that  of  the  Cinaloa  (Ya- 
qui  group).  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:333)  says  they  were  a  warlike  tribe, 
at  open  strife  with  all  their  neighbors,  and  were  anthropophagi. 
Their  location  was  in  the  sierra,  about  “seven  leagues  from  the  Sina- 
loas.77  He  adds  that  the  name,  which  signifies  “  arrow 77  in  Cahita, indi¬ 
cates  relationship  of  idiom  to  this  language.  Although  he  gives  the 
name  in  his  list  of  languages,  he  omits  it  from  the  classification,  map, 
and  extinct  idioms.  It  has  been  omitted  from  the  classified  list  in 
this  paper,  and  from  the  map,  but  with  some  doubt. 

Cora 

{Synonyms:  Chora,  Chota,  Nayarita) 

The  people  speaking  this  language  live  in  the  Sierra  de  Nayarit 
and  on  the  Rio  de  Jesus  Marla,  in  the  state  of  Jalisco.  They  are  the 
most  southerly  tribe  of  what  may  be  termed  the  Sonoran  group  of 
the  Nahuatlan  family. 

Orozco  y  Berra,  whose  mapping  is  followed  substantially  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  Cora  territory,  has  marked  this  area  according  to  the  best 


22 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


early  authorities,  most  of  them  in  manuscript  documents.  Reference 
is  made,  however,  to  other  authorities  treating  of  the  subject. 

Alegre,  after  referring  to  the  rugged,  mountainous  character  of  the 
district,  says  Chi,  196)  it  joins  on  the  east  Nueva-Vizcaya,  and  on  the 
north,  west,  and  south  Nueva-Galicia,  extending  from  22°  to  23° 
N.  lat.  Pimentel  simply  says  the  people  lived  in  the  Sierra  de  Nayarit 
but  is  more  specific  in  relation  to  the  subdivisions  of  the  tribe  men¬ 
tioned  below.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:279)  says  that,  according  to  Mota 
Padilla  (510),  the  area  was  included  between  21°  and  23°  N.  lat.  and 
261°  and  265°  longitude;  and  according  to  Revillagigedo,  between 
21°  and  24°  N.  lat.  and  266°  and  269°  “de  long,  del  meridiano  de 
Tenerife.”  Following  the  chart  of  Narvaez,  he  concludes  the  extent 
to  be  between  21°  20'  and  23°  N.  lat.  and  5°  and  6°  W.  long,  from 
the  meridian  of  Mexico  City. 

Joseph  de  Ortega,  whose  Vocabulario  en  Lengua  Castellana  y 
Cora  was  first  published  in  1732,  says  (p.  7,  reprint  of  1888)  that 
this  language  consisted  of  three  dialects:  Muutzicat,  spoken  by 
those  living  in  the  center  of  the  sierra;  Teacuacitzica,  spoken  by 
those  living  in  the  lower  parts  of  the  sierra  toward  the  west;  and 
Ateanaca  (sometimes  contracted  to  Ate)  spoken  by  the  Ateacari  living 
on  the  banks  of  the  Rio  Nayarit.  He  considers  the  last  as  the  Cora 
proper.  However,  the  differences  were  so  slight  that  subsequent 
writers  do  not  appear  to  have  considered  them  dialects  representing 
subtribal  distinctions.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1 :  281-282)  includes  the  Cora 
in  his  Opata-Tarahumar-Pima  family,  and  gives  as  divisions  the 
Cora  proper,  Nayarit,  Tecualme,  Gecualme,  and  Colotlan.  Nayarit, 
the  name  the  people  applied  to  themselves,  is  merely  a  synonym  of 
Cora.  Although  Tecualme  and  Gecualme  are  included  by  Orozco  y 
Berra  in  his  list  of  languages,  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  indicate 
dialectic  divisions.  Moreover,  he  gives  them  (1:280)  as  synonymous. 
(For  Colotlan ,  see  Tepecano,  etc.,  below.) 

Huichol 

(, Synonym :  Guicliola) 

A  tribe,  formerly  counted  as  a  sub  tribe  or  division  of  the  Cora  of 
Jalisco,  living  in  the  rugged  sierras  on  the  east  of  the  Cora,  by  whose 
territory  they  are  surrounded  on  the  north,  west,  and  south,  the 
Tepecano  joining  them  on  the  east.  Their  language  is  closely 
related  to  the  Cora,  causing  some  early  authorities  to  classify  them 
as  a  division  of  the  latter;  but  recent  investigations,  chiefly  by 
IJrdlicka,  have  led  to  the  conclusion  that  they  are  more  closely 
related  to  the  Guachichile  than  to  the  Cora,  and  are  apparently  an 
offshoot  of  that  tribe.  This  confirms  the  suggestion  thrown  out  by 
Orozco  y  Berra  (1:  282),  “que  los  Huicholas  son  los  restos  de  los  anti- 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  23 

guos  Cuachichiles  ,”  a  suggestion  which  he  says  he  neither  accepts  nor 
contradicts.  As  they  are  separated  from  the  parent  tribe  by  the 
intervening  Zacateco,  they  are  given  a  distinct  area  on  the  accom¬ 
panying  map,  with  the  same  number  as  the  Guacliichiles. 

Tepecano,  Teule,  Cazcan,  Tecuexe 

Orozco  y  Berra  places  on  his  map,  to  the  east  and  the  southeast  of 
the  Cora,  tribes  or  supposed  tribes  speaking  these  and  some  other 
dialects  (Coloclan  and  Coca).  As  there  is  considerable  doubt  in 
regard  to  the  existence  of  others  of  these  tribes  and  dialects  and  to  the 
linguistic  relations  of  some  of  them,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  some¬ 
what  closely  the  meager  data  regarding  them. 

Of  these,  Coloclan  may,  so  far  as  the  name  is  concerned,  be  dis¬ 
missed  from  consideration  as  it  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  his  work. 
It  was  evidently  intended  for  “Colotlan”  (also  given  incorrectly  by 
Bancroft,  i,  672,  as  “Cocotlanes”),  as  it  occupies  precisely  the  posi¬ 
tion  given  to  Colotlan  in  the  text.  Colotlan,  it  seems,  may  also  be 
dismissed,  as  Orozco  y  Berra  (2:644),  though  locating  it  on  his  map 
(as  “Coloclan”)  south  of  the  Tepecano  area  and  along  the  eastern 
boundary  of  the  Cora  territory,  identifies  it  with  Tepecano.  Colotlan 
is  marked  on  his  map  as  a  pueblo  in  the  Tepecano  district  and  is  given 
by  Doctor  Hrdlicka  (2:399-402)  as  in  the  Tepecano  area.  It  would 
appear  safe  from  this  evidence,  which  has  been  gathered  from  the 
early  statements  of  the  missionaries,  to  assume  that  Colotlan  and 
Tepecano  were  one  and  the  same  idiom.  As  this  writer  classifies 
Colotlan  as  a  dialect  of  Cora  (Orozco  y  Berra,  1:282),  this,  if  correct, 
would  bring  Tepecano  into  the  same  relation,  but  Doctor  Hrdlicka 
has  become  convinced  by  recent  investigations  made  in  the  section 
that  the  Tepecano  were  most  closely  related  to  the  Tepehuane,  and 
he  gives  a  brief  vocabulary  as  confirming  this  opinion  (2:419-425). 
Tepecano  is  given  substantially  the  same  area  on  the  accompanying 
map  as  on  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map. 

Coca  is  extinct  if,  in  fact,  it  ever  existed  as  a  distinct  idiom.  It 
could  not  have  been  very  different  from  Tecuexe  if  we  judge  by  the 
slight  notices  left  on  record  in  regard  to  it;  in  fact  Orozco  y  Berra 
includes  the  two  in  one  area  on  his  map.  This  leaves  for  considera¬ 
tion  of  this  group  of  small  tribes,  or  subtribes,  so  far  as  mapped  by 
the  writer  quoted,  the  Teule,  Cazcan,  and  Tecuexe. 

Very  little  mention  of  the  tribes  speaking  these  languages  has 
been  left  on  record.  Doctor  Hrdlicka  says  the  Cazcanes  occupied 
the  land  from  the  “Rio  Grande”  (Rio  Santiago),  bordering  on 
the  Tepecanos  and  Tecuexes.  Herrera  (u,  dec.  4,  197)  says 
merely  that  they  are  a  nation  which  inhabit  as  far  as  the  border  of 
the  Zacatecos,  and  that  their  speech  is  different  from  that  of  the 
Mexicans,  although  the  Mexican  language  had  extended  into  all 


24 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


that  region.  Antonio  Tello1  refers  to  the  Cazcan  of  Teul,  Tlalte- 
nango,  and  Xuchipila.  It  is  somewhat  singular  that  Arlegui,  who 
gives  a  list  of  the  “naciones”  of  this  section  (148-149),  omits  the 
name  of  the  Cazcan,  though  mentioning  the  Cora,  Nayarita  (?),  and 
Tepecano. 

Orozco  y  Berra  says  (1:  279)  that  the  Teule,  or,  as  he  terms  them, 
“Teules  Cliichimecas,”  used  the  same  idiom  as  the  Tepecano.  He 
bases  this  opinion  on  a  statement  in  documents  in  the  Arcliivo 
General.  Romero  Gil  (491,  499)  says  that  the  Cazcanes,  whom  he 
terms  “  Cazcanes  Chichimecas,”  were  Zacatecos,  and  suggests  that  the 
Tecuexes  were  a  Mexican  colony.  In  the  article  cited  above  Hrdlicka 
(428)  mentions  the  living  remnant  of  the  “  Teul-Chichimecs  ”  he 
found  in  two  old  villages  near  Teul. 

Names  of  Tribes  in  Northwestern  Mexico  not  Considered 

Separately 


AS  GIVEN  BY  OROZCO  Y  BERRA  AND  OTHER  WRITERS 


Names  of  tribes  or  supposed  tribes  or  sub  tribes  which  are  men¬ 
tioned  by  Spanish  writers  as  “naciones”  in  what  are  now  the  states 
of  Sonora,  Sinaloa,  Chihuahua,  Durango,  and  Jalisco,  or  that  area 
included  on  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map  in  the  Concho,  Tepehuan,  and 
Acaxee  areas,  and  the  part  of  Mexico  northwest  thereof,  which  are 
not  separately  discussed  in  this  volume,  are  as  follows: 


Ahomes 

Aibinos 

Alchedomas 

Ancavistis 

Anchanes 

Arigames 

Ateacari 

*Ateanaca 

Babispe  (Bap'ispe)  [on 
map] 

Babos 

Bacabaches 

Bacapas 

Bagiopas 

Baimoas  (or  Vaimoas) 
Bamoas 
Baquiobas 
Basiroas 
*Basopas 
Batucaris 
Batucos 
*Baturoques 
Bayacatos 
Biaras 
*Cacaris 


Cahiguas 

*Cajuenches 

Canceres 

Carlanes 

Chafalotes 

Changuaguanes 

Chemeguabas 

*Chemegues 

Chemeguet 

*Chicorato 

Chicuras 

*Chinarras 

*Chinipas 

Chiricaguis 

Chiros 

Chizos 

*Cocas 

Coclamas 

Cocobiptas 

Cogiiinachis 

Comoporis 

Comuripas 

Conejos 

Contlas 

Cuampes 


Cues  (los  Tecayaguis) 
Cunai 
Cutecos 
Cutganes 
Echunticas 
*Faraones 
Gecuiches 
Genicuiches 
Gilenos  (los  Xilenos) 
Gojoles 
Gozopas 
Guaicamaopas 
Guailopos 
Guazarachis 
Hichucios 
Himeris 
Hinas 
Hios 
Hizos 

Hudcoadanes 

*Huites 

Humas  (los  Chinarras) 

Humes 

Husorones 

Huvagueres 


1  In  Colec.  Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  n,  37G;  see  Icazbalceta,  in  the  Bibliography. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  25 


Jalched  unes 

Pajalames 

Tecargonis 

Jallicuamai 

Banana 

Tecayaguis  [see  Cues] 

Jagullapais 

Papudos 

Tecayas 

Jamajabs 

Pasalmes 

Tecoripas 

Janos 

Payuchas 

Tecuatzilzisti 

Jocomis 

Paxuchis 

*Teguima  (el  Opata) 

Jumanes 

Piatos 

Tegiiis 

Llamparicas 

*Piros 

Tehatas 

Maguiaquis 

Poarames 

Tehuizos 

Mammites 

Polames 

Temoris 

Matapanes 

Pulicas 

Teparantanas 

Mejuos 

*Putimas 

Tiburones 

Mezcaleros 

Quemeya 

Tintis 

Mimbrenos 

Quicamopas 

*Tlaxomultecas 

Movas 

Quihuimas,  los  Quiquimas 

Tochos 

Muares 

Quiquimas 

Tontos 

*Muutzizti  [Muutzicat] 

Salineros 

Torames 

Navajoas 

Sibubapas 

Vaimoas 

Navajos 

Sisibotaris 

*Vayemas 

Nures 

Sisimbres 

Xicarillas 

Oaboponomas 

Sfvolos 

Xilenos  [see  Gilenos] 

*Ocoronis 

*Sobaipuris 

*Yavipais,  los  Apaches 

Onavas 

Sovas 

Yecoratos 

Opas 

Sumas 

Yuanes  [Cuhana  los  Cucapa[ 

Oposines 

Supis 

*Yutas 

Orejones 

*Tahue 

Zayahuecos 

Oronihuatos 

Tapacolmes 

Zuaques,  el  Tehueco 

Otaquitamones 

*Teacuacitzisti 

LANGUAGES  FROM  OROZCO  Y  BERRA  WITHOUT  TRIBAL  NAMES 

*Mediotaguel 

*Pacasa 

TRIBAL 

NAMES  FROM  OTHER  AUTHORITIES 

Buasdabas 

Nacameris 

Nacosuras 

Cumupas 

This  area  is  thus  marked  off  from  the  rest  of  Mexico  because  these 
supposed  “naciones”  were  included  therein  by  the  writers  who 
mention  them,  though  in  some  cases  erroneously,  according  to  the 
boundaries  of  the  present  day. 

There  are  several  reasons  why  none  of  these  names  have  been 
recognized  on  the  map,  some  of  which  are  given  in  the  notes  following. 
In  some  instances  the  names  have  reference  to  villages  in  which  the 
language  spoken  was  one  already  mentioned,  and  marked  on  the 
map.  In  other  cases  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  people  named 
spoke  a  distinct  language  or  dialect.  In  some  instances  in  which  it  is 
stated  the  dialect  was  distinct,  it  is  impossible,  from  the  evidence,  to 
classify  it  or  to  determine  that  it  should  be  placed  in  the  list  of  real 
unclassified  languages.  The  first  and  largest  portion  of  the  names 
is  from  Orozco  y  Berra’s  list  of  tribes  (1:  67-76) ;  the  second  portion 
is  from  his  list  of  languages  (1:62-66),  for  which  he  presents  no 
tribal  names,  while  the  third  part  contains  tribal  names  not  mentioned 


8347°— Bull.  44—11 - 3 


26 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


by  him,  but  have  been  taken  from  other  authors.  The  names  to 
which  the  asterisk  (*)  is  prefixed  are  those  which  correspond  with 
names  in  his  list  of  languages.  This  shows  that  the  tribes  not  so 
indicated  in  his  list  of  tribes  were  not  considered  by  him  as  speaking 
distinct  idioms. 

If  his  conclusion  be  accepted  without  reserve,  so  far  as  the  present 
investigation  is  concerned  all  the  names  in  his  list  of  tribes  having 
no  corresponding  name  in  his  list  of  languages  may  as  well  be  ex¬ 
cluded,  but  this  would  leave  the  whole  subject  to  his  judgment  with¬ 
out  investigation.  It  is  proper  first  to  ascertain  how  many  names 
can  be  eliminated  from  the  list  as  duplicates,  or  are  otherwise  clearly 
erroneously  given,  and  also  those  already  considered  in  the  preceding 
notes. 

Those  of  this  list  which  have  been  noticed  in  the  preceding  notes, 
and  a  conclusion  reached  in  regard  thereto,  are  as  follows  (retaining 
the  names  as  written  therein) : 


Ahomes 

Comoporis 

Salineros 

Aibinos 

Comuripas 

Teacuacitzica 

Ateanaca 

Hinas 

Tecayas 

Basopas 

Huites 

Tecoripas 

Batucaris 

Humes 

Teguimas  (Opatas  Tegui- 

Chicoratas 

Movas 

mas) 

Chinipas 

Muutzicat 

Teguis  (Opatas  Teguis) 

Cocas 

Nures 

Vaimoas  (Baimoas) 

Coguinachis  (Opata  Coguin- 

Onavas 

achis) 

Papudos 

Those  names  which  may  be  eliminated  are  as  follows: 

Alchedomas .  Same  as  Jalchedunes;  in  California- Arizona;  Yuman. 

Ancavistis .  A  band  or  subdivision  of  the  Faraon  Apache. 

Anchanes .  A  division  of  the  Concho,  speaking  their  language  and  living 

on  the  Rio  Concho  (Orozco  y  Berra,  1:325). 

Ateacari .  A  division  of  the  Cora;  synonym  of  Ateanaca,  which  denotes 

the  language. 

Bacabaches .  Orozco  y  Berra  mentions  the  name  in  his  list  and  refers  to 

Sonora,  but  it  is  not  found  there.  A  Mayo  settlement 
near  Mayo  river  (?)  using  the  Mayo  language  (Hrdlicka, 
1:59).  It  is  distinct  from  Baca. 


Bacapas _ ! .  This  name  appears  to  have  been  given  a  place  in  Orozco  y 

Berra’s  list  without  sufficient  data  in  his  text  to  justify  its 
inclusion.  A  Papago  rancheria. 

Bagiopas . v  In  California- Arizona. 

Baimoas .  S eeVaimoas. 

Baquiobas .  In  United  States,  same  as  Bagiopas. 

Basiroas .  A  Lower  Pima  band.  See  Ilios  below. 

Batucos .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:344)  as  a  synonym  of  Eudeve, 

though  in  the  Rudo  Ensayo  (181  et  seq.)  it  is  alluded  to  as 
a  pueblo. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  27 


Baturoques .  Merely  mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  as  an  extinct  tribe 

formerly  living  in  Sonora.  No  particulars  have  been  found. 
Probably  a  synonym  of  Batucaris. 

Bayacatos .  This  name  is  given  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s  list  with  reference  to 

Sinaloa,  but  it  does  not  appear  in  the  text. 

Biaris .  Orozco  quotes  this  name  from  Alegre  (i,  288),  but  this  author, 

though  mentioning  the  name,  gives  nothing  by  which  to 
locate  the  people  designated,  nor  anything  in  regard  to  their 
language.  Probably  the  same  as  Biaras,  a  Tehueco  settlement. 

Cacari .  Mentioned  by  Fernando  Ramirez  (Orozco  y  Berra,  1:319)  as 

an  extinct  tribe  formerly  living  in  Cacaria,  Durango. 

Cahiguas .  Faraon  Apache  (Orozco  y  Berra,  1:386),  in  northern  Chi¬ 

huahua?  (See  article  Kiowa ,  in  Handbook  of  American 
Indians,  pt.  1.) 

Canceres .  Given  as  belonging  to  the  Faraon  Apache  in  Chihuahua 

(Orozco  y  Berra,  1:  386).  (See  article  Lipan,  in  Handbook 
of  American  Indians,  pt.  1.) 

Carlanes .  A  Jicarilla  band  on  Arkansas  river.  Bandelier,  Archseolog. 

Inst.  Papers,  v,  191. 

Coclamas .  Mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:325)  as  near  the  Tobosos. 

No  further  information  given. 

Cocobiptas .  Orozco  y  Berra  refers  to  Chihuahua,  but  it  is  not  found  in  the 

text  under  this  heading,  though  it  is  given  under  Coahuila 
(1:306)  as  from  a  list  in  the  manuscript  of  Revillagigedo. 
No  locality  given;  possibly  in  Texas.  No  additional  data. 

Conejos .  Mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:327)  as  pertaining  to  the 

Concho;  and  (1:325)  as  being  at  the  mission  of  Nuestra 
Senora  de  Aranzazu.  No  further  data. 

Contla .  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:344)  says  merely  it  is  stated  that  the  in¬ 

habitants  of  Santa  Cruz  are  of  the  “nacion  Contla.”  Opata. 
As  nothing  further  in  regard  to  the  name  is  found,  it  may 
be  dismissed  from  consideration. 

Cuampes .  A  division  of  the  Faraon  Apache. 

Cues .  See  Tecayaguis. 

Cunai .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  as  connected  with  the  Cajuenche,  a 

Yuman  dialect  apparently  in  the  United  States.  Nothing 
further  stated.  See  Cuneil  in  Handbook  of  American  Indians. 

Cutganes .  The  Cuchan,  or  Yuma,  in  the  United  States. 

Chafalotes .  Mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:386)  as  a  division  or  sub¬ 

tribe  of  the  Apache;  probably  in  Sonora. 

Changuaguanes .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  as  belonging  to  the  Faraon  Apache. 

Ute.  (See  article  Ahanaquint ,  in  Handbook  of  American 
Indians,  pt.  1.) 

Chemeguabas .  In  southern  California,  probably  a  part  of  ora  synonym  for 

the  Chemehuevi.  (See  Garces,  230-352,  especially  351.) 

Chemegues .  Synonym  of  Chemehuevi. 

Chemeguet . .  Synonym  of  Chemehuevi. 

Chicuras .  Orozco  y  Berra  gives  the  name  (properly  Cicuris)  in  his  list. 

This  is  found  (by  reference  to  Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  4th  s.,  in, 
408 — Orozco  y  Berra’s  reference  to  Ribas  is  an  error)  to  be 
merely  the  name  of  a  pueblo,  the  language  being  partly 
Tepehuan  and  partly  Basopan. 

Chiricaguis .  Name  given  to  an  important  subtribe  (Chiricahua)  of  the 

Apache,  north  of  the  international  boundary. 


28 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Chiros .  Orozco  y  Berra  gives  this  name  in  his  list  and  refers  to  Chihua¬ 

hua,  but  does  not  mention  it  under  this  heading.  However, 
he  gives  ( 1 :325) ,  as  apparently  near  the  Toboso,  the  following : 
Sisimbre,  Chizo,  Cocoyome,  Coclama,  Tocho,  Chizo,  Babo, 
and  Nure.  It  is  probable,  as  the  name  Chizos  is  repeated, 
one  should  be  Chiros,  the  change  being  a  misprint.  Ban¬ 
croft  (i,  610),  in  copying  the  list,  omits  one  Chizos  and 
does  not  give  the  name  Chiros  at  any  place.  No  further 
mention  of  it  has  been  found. 


Chizos .  No  information  regarding  this  supposed  tribe  has  been  found 

other  than  that  given  under  the  last  preceding  name. 

Cutecos .  See  Iiusorones,  below. 

Echunticas .  Given  as  belonging  to  the  Faraon  Apache.  (Given  as  a  syn- 

onym  of  Kotsoteka ,  in  Handbook  of  American  Indians, 
pt.  1,  728.) 

Faraones .  A  division  or  tribe  of  the  Apache. 

Gecuiches .  In  southern  California;  synonym  of  Shoshonean  Kawia.  (See 

Handbook  of  American  Indians,  pt.  1,  665.) 

Genicuiche3 .  Synonym  of  Serranos.  (See  Handbook  of  American  Indians, 

pt.  2,  513.) 

Gilenos .  Synonym  of  Gila  Apache,  New  Mexico.  (See  Handbook  of 

American  Indians,  pt.  1,  492.) 

Gojoles .  Mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:279)  as  in  Jalisco  near  the 

Tepecano.  No  additional  information  found.  Possibly  a 
synonym  of  Iluichol. 

Gozopas .  Orozco  y  Berra  gives  this  name  in  his  list  and  refers  to  Sinaloa, 

but  it  is  not  mentioned  under  that  head.  It  is  probably  a 
synonym  of  Guazave  as  Pabas  (211),  to  whom  he  refers  on 
the  page  on  which  he  mentions  Guazave,  gives  “Gozaua.”1 


Guaicamaopas. .  . This  name  is  given  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s  list  with  reference  to 

Sonora,  but  is  not  found  under  that  heading;  however, 
it  is  in  his  classification,  under  “Yuma”  (1:59).  It  is 
probably  a  synonym  of  Yacum,  a  Diegueno  tribe,  California. 
(See  Handbook  of  American  Indians,  pt.  2,  982.) 

Guailopos .  Orozco  y  Berra  gives  this  name  in  his  list,  and  in  his  text 

(1:324).  He  says,  “En  San  Andres  Chinipas  vivian  los 
Chinipas,  a  que  se  agregaron  los  Guailopos  y  Maguiaquis ” 
referring  in  a  note  to  “Cuarta  serie  de  documentos  [Doc. 
Hist.  Mex.],  tomo  III,  pag.  386  ysiguientes.”  In  the  latter, 
the  only  reference  found  (387)  approximating  the  state¬ 
ment  in  the  text  is  that  in  the  Partido  de  Santa  Ines  de 
Chinipa  the  language  is  called  “Chinipa  o  Guaropaque.” 
No  San  Andres  Chinipa  is  mentioned,  but  a  “San  Andres 
de  Conicari  ”  (384)  is  given.  Orozco  y  Berra  ( 1 :  326)  places 
the  language  in  question  under,  and  as  included  in,  Varohio, 
as  he  does  also  Maguiaquis.  As  it  is  not  given  a  place  in 
his  list  of  languages,  it  may  be  eliminated. 

Guazarachis .  This  name  is  given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  in  his  list  with  reference 

to  Chihuahua.  It  is  not  found  under  that  head,  but  is  given 
(1:386)  as  a  Faraon  division.  The  Handbook  of  American 
Indians  (pt.  1.  511)  refers  to  Guazarachic  as  a  Tarahumare 

1  Orozco  y  Berra’s  references  at  this  point  (1:333)  are  erroneous,  owing  probably  to  typographical 
error.  Note3,  “pg. 211,”  following  “2  CuartaSerie, ’’etc.,  should  be  “Ribas,”  and  “4”  and  “5,”  referring 
to  Ribas,  properly  refer  to  Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  4th  ser.,  hi. 


THOMAS)  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  29 


settlement,  and  Guasarochic  as  a  synonym.  As  it  is  not  in¬ 
cluded  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s  list  of  languages  it  may  be 
eliminated. 

Hichucios .  Orozco  y  Berra  gives  this  (1:58,  335)  as  included  under  Tehueco, 

and  as  speaking  the  Tehueco  dialect  of  the  Cahita. 

Hizos .  The  same  author  includes  this  under  the  Varohio  and  as 

speaking  the  same  language,  a  dialect  of  Tarahumare. 

Hudcoadanes .  Name  which  seems  to  have  been  applied  to  a  band  of  Yuma 

on  the  lower  Colorado  river,  apparently  north  of,  but  near, 
'  the  international  boundary  (Orozco  y  Berra,  1:353;  Doc. 
Hist.  Mex.,  3d  s.,  554).  Given  as  a  synonym  of  Alchedoma 
in  the  Handbook  of  American  Indians,  pt.  1. 


Humas .  Another  name  for  the  Chinarra  (Orozco  y  Berra,  1:69). 

Husorones,  Cutecos...  Pueblos  or  divisions  of  the  Yarohio,  speaking  the  Varohio 

dialect. 

Huvagueres .  The  only  discovered  reference  to  this  group  or  band  is  by 


Orozco  y  Berra  in  his  list  and  text  (1:351)  and  Bancroft’s 
quotation  thereof.  The  former  says,  “Los  Hios,  a  ocho 
leguas  al  Este  de  Tepahue,  y  los  Huvagueres  y  los  Tehuisos 
sus  vecinos:  mas  al  Este  seguian  los  Basiroas  y  los  Tehatas.” 
This  would  place  them  about  the  meeting  point  of  the 
Lower  Pima,  Tarahumare,  and  Yaqui  group  areas.  As 
Orozco  y  Berra  does  not  include  the  name  in  his  list  of 
languages,  it  may  be  omitted.  Lower  Pima.  (See  Basi¬ 
roas  and  Hios,  p.  32.) 


Jalchedunes . Mentioned  by  Francisco  Garces  (Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  2d  s.,  i, 

346,  350)  as  a  subtribe  of  the  Yuma.  Same  as  Alchedoma. 
In  the  United  States. 

Jallicuamai .  Given  by  Francisco  Garces  (248,  251,  346)  as  a  Yuman 


tribe  immediately  north  of  the  Cocopa  on  Colorado  river? 
partly  north  of  the  international  boundary  line.  Orozco  y 
Berra  (1:353)  places  them  with  the  Cajuenche,  both  speak¬ 
ing  the  same  dialect,  which  was  very  near  that  of  the  Yuma 
proper.  The  Handbook  of  American  Indians  (pt.  2,  340) 
gives  the  name  as  a  synonym  of  Quigyuma. 

Jagullapais  [Jaqualla-  Garces  (309).  The  Walapai,  a  Yuman  tribe  north  of  the 


pais]  boundary  line. 

Jamajabs,  Yamajabs,  Mohave  north  of  the  international  boundary  line. 

Tamajabs. 

Janos .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:386)  as  the  Faraon  Apache  in 

Chihuahua.  Bandelier  ( Nation ,  July  2,  1885)  also  says 
they  were  Apache. 

Jacomis  [Jocomes] _ An  Apache  tribe  in  Chihuahua. 

Jumanes  [Jumanos], . .  A  tribe  probably  identical  with  a  part  of  the  Wichita,  formerly 

living  about  the  junction  of  the  Concho  with  the  Rio  Grande. 

Llamparicas .  A  division  of  the  Comanche  in  the  United  States — synonym 

of  Ditsakana  (Handbook  of  American  Indians,  pt.  1,  393). 

Maguiaquis .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1 :  326)  as  belonging  to  the  Varohio, 


a  subtribe  of  the  Tarahumare.  (See  remarks  under  Guai- 
lopos,  above.) 

Mammites  (Mamites). .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  as  connected  with  the  Concho 

(1  :  325,  327).  As  this  author  gives  the  name  in  his  list  of 
tribes  and  does  not  place  it  in  his  list  of  languages,  it  may  be 
omitted;  moreover,  the  Indians  referred  to,  if  the  name  be 
legitimate,  were  probably  north  of  the  boundary  line. 


30 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Matapanes .  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:335)  connects  these  with  the  Tehueco 

division  of  the  Yaqui  group,  but  does  not  include  the  name 
in  his  list  of  languages.  (See  remarks  under  Biaris,  above.) 
Mejuos .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:327)  in  connection  with  the 


Concho.  He  says  (1:325):  “La  tribu  hablaba  la  lengua 
particular  llamada  Concha:  mas  no  solo  eran  los  Conchos 
quienes  las  componian,  sino  otra  porcion  de  familias  que 
usando  el  mismo  idioma  llevaban  distintos  nombres.  Los 
primeros  que  se  presentan  son  los  Mejuos [etc.].  No  au¬ 
thority  has*  been  discovered  for  this  statement,  which  it 
seems  he  applies  also  to  the  Tapacolmes,  Anchanes,  Julimes, 
Cholomos,  Mezquites,  Cacalotes,  Oposines,  Conejos,  Po- 
lames,  Sivolos,  Puliquis,  and  Pasalmes.  For  the  Mejuos 
he  refers  to  Alegre  (ii,  58),  but  turning  to  the  latter  author 
we  find  he  merely  speaks  of  drawing  into  the  mission  at 
San  Pedro  “more  than  two  hundred  families  of  Conchos, 
Mejuos,  and  other  nations.”  Orozco  y  Berra  does  not  give 
the  name  Mejuos  in  his  list  of  languages. 


Mezcaleros .  Faraon  Apache,  United  States. 

Mimbrenos .  Apache  in  United  States. 

Muares .  Faraon  Apache. 

Navajoas .  Navaho  in  United  States. 

Oaboponomas .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:59)  under  Yuma.  In  United 


States  (Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  4th  s.,  i,  349).  Handbook  of 
American  Indians  (pt.  1,  554)  gives  it  as  a  synonym  of 
Hoabonoma. 


Opas .  Yuman,  in  United  States.  Synonym  or  abbreviation  of 

Maricopa. 

Oposines .  One  of  the  names  given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  under  Concho 

(1:55,327).  (See  remarks  under  Mejuos,  above.) 

Orejones .  Belong  to  Faraon  Apache. 

Oronihuatos .  Given  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s  list  with  reference  to  Sinaloa,  but 

it  is  not  found  under  that  head,  nor  elsewhere  so  far  as  dis¬ 
covered.  Possibly  a  misprint. 

Otaquitamones .  Connected  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:325)  with  the  Concho. 

(See  remarks  under  Mejuos ,  above.) 

Pajalames .  Same  remark  as  under  Otaquitamones . 

Panana .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  as  connected  with  the  Faraon  Apache . 

The  Handbook  of  American  Indians  (pt.  2,  216)  gives  it  as 
a  synonym  of  Pawnee. 

Pasalmes .  Found  in  the  same  connection  as  Pajalame,  and  is  probably  a 

synonym. 

Payuchas .  Paiute  in  United  States. 

Pazuchis  (Paxuchis). .  Given  as  connected  with  the  Faraon  Apache,  but  are  Paiute. 

Piatos .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:58,  353)  as  an  Upper  Pima 

subtribe  in  Sonora.  According  to  The  Handbook  of  Amer¬ 
ican  Indians  (pt.  2,  241)  a  branch  of  the  Papago. 

Poarames .  Given  in  connection  with  the  Concho.  (See  remark  under 

Mejuos ,  above.) 

Polames .  Same  as  Poarames,  above. 

Pulicas  (Puliques) _  Same  as  Poarames. 

Putimas .  Formerly  in  Sonora.  Extinct;  no  particulars  given. 

Quemeya .  Connected  by  Garces  with  the  Cajuenche  division  of  the 

Yuman  family.  In  United  States. 


thomas]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  31 


Quicamopas .  Yuman,  in  United  States. 

Quiquimas  .  Same  as  Quemeya. 

Sibubapas .  This,  according  to  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:351),  was  the  name 

given  to  the  people  of  Suaqui,  a  Lower  Pima  pueblo.  It 
is  not  included  in  his  list  of  languages. 

Sisimbres .  Mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:325)  as  living  near  the  Tobo- 

sos.  Not  in  his  list  of  languages.  No  further  notice  found. 

Sivolos .  Mentioned  in  connection  with  the  Concho  (Orozco  y  Berra, 


1 : 327).  Not  identified;  evidently  distinct  from  the  inhab¬ 
itants  of  the  ancient  Cibola,  the  “province”  of  Zuni  in 
New  Mexico. 

Sobaipures .  Part  of  the  Upper  Pima.  In  United  States.  (Maj.  J.  W. 

Powell  in  Seventh  Annual  Report  of  Bureau  of  Ethnology, 
98).  Bancroft  makes  two  mistakes  regarding  these  Indians. 
In  vol.  i,  603,  he  locates  them  among  the  Lower  Pima,  and 
in  his  general  index  (vol.  v)  he  places  them  with  the 
“Pueblos.”  Extinct. 


Sobas  (Sovas) .  Pima  sub  tribe  included  by  Orozco  y  Berra  in  his  list  of  tribes, 

but  not  in  his  list  of  languages. 

Supis .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:386)  erroneously  as  connected 

with  the  Faraon  Apache.  Abbreviation  of  Havasupai, 
Yuman,  in  United  States. 

Tapacolmes .  Given  by  the  same  author  (1:327)  as  connected  with  the 

Concho.  Not  included  in  his  list  of  languages. 

Tecargonis .  A  band  or  pueblo  speaking  the  Yarohio  dialect  (Orozco  y 

Berra,  1:324).  He  refers  in  a  note  to  the  Doc.  Hist.  Mex., 
4th  s.,  hi,  386  et  seq.,  but  the  name  is  not  found  there. 

Tecayaguis .  Orozco  y  Berra  (1 : 356)  places  these  among  the  extinct  peoples 


of  Sonora,  with  the  following  remark:  “En  las  vertientes  del 
rio  [Mayo],  antes  de  los  Tepahues,  se  encontraban  los 
Tecayaguis,  Cues  6  Macoyahuis,  con  su  lengua  particular 
el  Macoyahuy.”  As  this  author  does  not  include  the  name 
in  his  list  of  languages,  it  is  probable  that  he  intended  by 
the  above  remark  that  the  Tecayagui  spoke  the  Macoyahui 
idiom. 

Tecayas .  Mentioned  by  Alegre  (i,  379-380)  as  in  Topia  apparently  as 

the  people  of  a  pueblo,  probably  of  San  ‘Mateo  Tecayas, 
and  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:55,  319)  as  speaking  the  Acaxee 
language.  As  the  name  is  not  given  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s 
list  of  languages  and  as  nothing  more  is  found  recorded 
regarding  them,  they  may  be  omitted. 

Tehatas .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:58,  353)  as  a  band  or  subtribe  of 

the  Pima  in  Sonora,  but  not  speaking  a  distinct  idiom. 
(See  Basiroas,  Hios,  p.  32.) 

Tehuizos  (Tehuisos).  .  See  Huvagueres,  above;  also  Basiroas,  Hijos ,  p.  32. 


Teparantanas .  Orozco  y  Berra  mentions  (1:61,  75,  356)  Teparantana  as  an 

extinct  language  of  Sonora,  without  any  particulars. 

Tintis .  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:58,  324)  mentions  these  Indians  as  con¬ 

nected  with  the  Tubar  and  speaking  their  language,  but 
does  not  give  the  name  in  his  list  of  languages. 

Tochos .  Mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  as  near  the  Toboso  (1:325), 

and  included  in  his  list  of  tribes  (1:75),  but  there  is  noth¬ 
ing  to  indicate  that  they  spoke  a  distinct  idiom. 


32 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Tontos .  Apache  in  United  States. 

Vaimoas  (Baimoas). . .  The  same  is  to  be  said  as  under  Tecayas,  except  that  these  are 

not  mentioned  by  Alegre  at  the  place  cited. 

Vayemas .  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:338,  356)  mentions  Yayema  as  an  extinct 

language  of  Sonora,  but  gives  no  intimation  as  to  its  rela¬ 
tionship  or  definite  locality. 

Xicarillas .  The  Jicarilla  Apache,  in  United  States. 

Xilenos  (Gilenos) . An  Apache  tribe,  in  United  States. 

Yavipais .  A  Yuman  tribe,  in  United  States. 

Yecoratos .  Given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:333)  as  in  the  Yaqui  group.  A 

synonym  of  Chicoratos. 

Yuanes .  Synonym  of  Cocopa. 

Yutas . . . The  Ute,  in  United  States. 

Zayahuecos .  See  Torames ,  p.  36. 


Having  thus  eliminated  those  names  which,  for  the  reasons  given, 
it  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  here,  there  remain  to  be  considered  the 
following: 


Arigames 

Babos 

Batucos 

Cajuenches 


Humeris 

Hios 

Ocoronis 

Piros 


Coras  (of  Lower  California)  Sisibotaris 
Chinarras 

Idioms:  Mediotaguel,  Pacasa. 


Sumas 

Tahues 

Temoris 

Tiburones 

Torames 


Also  the  list  of  names  from  other  authors,  as  given  above. 


Arigames .  These  are  connected  by  Orozco  y  Berra  with  the  Conchos 

(1:55,  325),  but  without  any  statement  as  to  locality. 
Arlegui  (109-110)  says  the  missions  of  the  Conchos  were 
visited  daily  by  families  from  the  north.  It  is  probable 
that,  through  these,  names  of  tribes,  bands,  etc.,  both 
within  and  outside  of  the  Concho  area,  were  obtained 
winch  has  caused  so  many  names  to  be  connected  with 
the  Conchos.  Orozco  y  Berra  does  not  include  the  name 
in  his  list  of  languages. 

Babos .  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:  325)  gives  this  name  in  connection  with 

the  Toboso,  but  does  not  include  it  in  his  list  of  languages. 
As  he  states  expressly  that  the  supposed  tribes,  etc., 
named  in  this  connection  are  believed  to  be  related  to  the 
Apache,  it  is  probable  Babos  was  the  name  given  to  a  band 
of  Apache.  It  is  somewhat  singular  that  we  find  the  Nure 
among  them.  He  can  not  refer  to  the  Nuri  of  the  Lower 
Pima  group. 

Bapispes  (Babispe). . .  Ribas  (359);  the  inhabitants  of  the  pueblo  of  Babispe,  in 

the  northeastern  portion  of  the  Opata  territory.  It  seems 
they  spoke  Opata,  though  Ribas  uses  the  term  “nacion;” 
however,  they  were  closely  associated  with  the  Potlapigua, 
a  Piman  tiibe  (Orozco  y  Berra,  1 :  348),  and  also  with  the 
Batuco  (q.  v.,  p.  26). 

Basiroas,  Hios  (Ihios).  The  Hios,  or  Ihios  as  they  are  named  by  Ribas,  are  men¬ 
tioned  several  times  by  this  author  (215,  227,  255,  274), 
but  usually  in  connection  with  the  Guazapares,  Varohios, 
Temoris,  and  Chinipas,  always  with  one  or  more  of  them. 


(THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA 


33 


Batucos 


Orozco  y  Berra  (1:  351)  mentions  them  as  Lower  Pima  in 
connection  with  the  Huvagueres,  Tehuisos,  Basiroas,  and 
Tehatas,  “Los  Hios,  a  ocho  leguas  al  Este  de  Tepahue,  y  los 
Huvagueres  y  los  Tehuisos  sus  vecinos:  mas  al  Este  seguian 
los  Basiroas  y  los  Tehatas.” 

The  Huvaguere  have  already  been  referred  to  above; 
and  precisely  the  same  remark  applies  to  the  Tehuisos, 
Basiroas,  and  Tehatas.  All  these  supposed  tribes  or  sub¬ 
tribes,  including  the  Ilios,  are  located  by  Orozco  y  Berra 
between  the  Tepahue  and  the  Varohio,  which  are  not  dis¬ 
tant  one  from  the  other,  and,  according  to  his  map,  would 
lie  directly  along  the  border  line  between  the  territory  of 
the  Yaqui  group  and  that  of  the  Tarahumare.  Although 
Ribas  makes  frequent  mention  of  the  Hios,  he  does  not 
speak  of  them  separately  nor  refer  to  their  language;  he 
makes  no  mention  of  any  one  of  the  other  three  names. 
Zapata  (384-389),  writing  some  thirty  or  forty  years  later, 
and  referring  to  the  missions  and  pueblos  of  this  precise 
section,  does  not  name  any  one  of  these  four  subtribes  or 
their  idioms,  if  different.  Yet  he  does  refer  to  the  Guaza- 
pare  and  the  Varohio,  and  to  the  pueblos  of  Chinipa,  Conicari, 
etc.,  in  the  region  mentioned,  and  to  the  language  spoken 
therein.  However,  Alegre,  writing  in  the  following  cen¬ 
tury,  speaks  of  the  Hios  eight  leagues  east  of  the  Tepahue 
and  five  from  Comicari  [Conicari],  of  the  Huvagueres  and 
Tehuisos,  their  neighbors,  and  of  the  Basiroas  and  Te¬ 
hatas,  a  little  farther  in  the  sierra.  This  is  evidently 
Orozco  y  Berra’s  authority  for  his  statement,  but  as  the 
statement  by  Alegre  closes  with  reference  to  “otros  pue¬ 
blos,”  it  seems  evident  that  he  uses  the  names  mentioned 
as  referring  to  villages.  As  there  are  no  indications  any¬ 
where,  not  even  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s  list  of  languages,  that 
these  names  bore  any  relation  to  distinct  idioms,  they  may 
be  eliminated. 

Ribas  (359)  says  they  came  from  the  north*,  and  dwelt  near 
the  friendly  “naciones”— Cumupas,  Buasdabas,  and  Bapis- 
pes,  extending  down  eastward  to  the  Sunas.  Kino,  Kap- 
pus,  and  Mange  (393)  speak  of  Batuco  as  a  geographical 
term — “los  valles  y  pueblos  de  Batuco” — but  a  little 
farther  on  (400)  make  mention  of  the  entrance  of  Padre 
Mendez  into  the  “nacion”  of  the  Batucos.  Zapata  (356) 
says  the  language  spoken  in  the  pueblo  of  Santa  Marfa  de 
Batuco  was  Tehue.  The  geographical  description  gives  the 
same  location  as  the  preceding.  Azpilcueta  (in  Alegre,  ii, 
186),  referring  to  his  visit  to  the  Batuco,  says  their  lan¬ 
guage  is  not  difficult  and  appears  to  be  much  like  that  of 
Ocoroni.  According  to  Velasco  (Orozco  y  Berra,  1:343), 
Batuco  was  one  of  the  pueblos  of  the  Opatas  Tegiiis.  As 
the  name  “Tegiiis”  seems  to  be  pronounced  Te-gu-is,  it  is 
possible  that  Te-hu-e  is  the  same.  If  this  be  correct,  the 
last  two  statements  agree  and  the  language  spoken  was 
Opata.  The  Tahue  mentioned  farther  on  must  not  be 
confounded  with  Tehue  here:  the  former  belonged  to 
Sinaloa,  the  latter  to  Sonora.  However,  Orozco  y  Berra 


34 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Cajuenches 


Chinarras 


Coras  (of  Lower  Cali¬ 
fornia). 


Cumupas,  Buasdabas. 
Himeris  (Hymeris) . .  . 


classes  Tehue  with  Eudeve,  but  without  considering  it 
a  distinct  idiom,  as  he  does  not  include  it  in  his  list  of 
languages. 

After  giving  an  extract  from  Francisco  Garces,  Orozco  y 
Berra  (1 :  350)  says  this  may  appear  at  first  not  to  correspond 
with  what  he  (Orozco  y  Berra)  has  said,  as  according  to  it 
the  nations  dwelling  along  the  Colorado  river,  beginning 
at  the  mouth,  were  the  Cucapa,  Jallicuamay,  Cajuenche, 
Jalchedun,  and  Jamajab,  where  he  had  placed  the  Quiqui- 
mas,  Cuhanas,  and  Yumas.  He  claims,  however,  that  the 
contradiction  will  disappear  when  we  consider  that  the 
Cuhanes  and  Cucapas  were  one  and  the  same  tribe  and 
that  the  others  are  nothing  more  than  families  [bands?] 
derived  from  the  pueblos  speaking  Pima.  As  it  is  clear 
from  Garces’  Diario  that  the  Cajuenche  were  north  of  the 
Cocopa  and  were  Yuman,  they  should  be  considered  as 
belonging  to  the  United  States. 

According  to  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:  325),  the  Chinarra,  or  Huma, 
occupied  the  pueblo  of  Santa  Ana,  in  Chihuahua.  This,  he 
states,  was  situated  to  the  southeast  of  the  Tarahumare  ter¬ 
ritory,  apparently  in  the  southern'  part  of  the  area  he  has 
assigned  to  the  Concho  on  his  map.  Arlegui  (110)  brings 
them  into  relation  with  the  Concho,  who,  he  says,  anciently 
inhabited  a  large  area  and  many  pueblos,  some  of  which  were 
occupied  subsequently  by  the  Tarahumare.  Then  follows 
the  list  of  other  “naciones”  of  this  region — Tobosos, 
Chizos,  Cocoyames,  Acoclames,  Julimes,  Tapacolmes,  Chi¬ 
narras,  etc.  Orozco  y  Berra,  probably  on  the  authority  of 
Hervas  as  given  below,  says  the  Chinarras  spoke  a  Mexican 
dialect  (“dialecto  Mexicano”).  Hervas  (312)  says  that  the 
missionary  Rafael  Palacios  informed  him  (in  a  letter)  that 
the  Cinarras  dwelt  about  28  leagues  north  of  the  Conchos; 
that  while  they  spoke  Spanish,  yet  he  had  heard  them 
speaking  together  a  language  which  to  his  ear  appeared  to  be 
Mexican.  They  informed  him  that  they  were  derived  from 
the  Conchos.  It  would  seem  from  this  that  they  lived  near 
the  international  boundary  line. 

This  name  has  been  applied  to  a  subtribe  of  the  Waicuri, 
and  is  mentioned  here  merely  to  call  attention  to  the  dis¬ 
tinction  to  be  made  between  it  and  the  well-known  tribe 
of  the.  same  name  in  the  state  of  Jalisco,  discussed  in  the 
first  part  of  these  notes. 

Same  reference  and  remark  as  under  Bapispes,  above. 

Alegre  (n,  343)  says  the  Hymeri  were  a  “nacion”  situated  in 
the  various  valleys  formed  by  the  Sierra  Madre  northwest 
of  the  valley  of  Sonora — that  is  to  say,  in  the  Opata  country. 
According  to  Ribas,  they  were  ferocious,  holding  friendship 
with  no  other  people,  from  which  fact  Hervas  (337) 
thinks  it  probable  they  spoke  a  dialect  distinct  from  that  of 
the  Opatas,  though  they  were  related  to  that  people. 
Orozco  y  Berra  (1:58)  classes  them  with  the  Opata  without 
idiomatic  distinction. 

Same  remark  as  for  Tahue. 


Mediotaguei 


thomas]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  35 


Nacomeris,  Nacosuras. 

Ocoronis . 


Pacasa 

Piros. 


Sisibotaris 


Sumas . 

Tahue  (Tahueca) 
Temoris . 


Ribas  (358)  mentions  these  two  peoples  as  adjoining  on  one  side 
the  Hure  (Opata)  and  on  the  other  the  Ilimeri.  They  were 
in  fact  pueblos,  the  first  on  the  Rio  Horcasitas  and  the  other 
on  the  Rio  Moctezuma.  Zapata  (352)  says  the  language 
spoken  at  Nacameri  was  Huere  (that  is,  Opata). 

Ribas  (34)  mentions  the  Ocoroni  in  connection  with  Mocorito 
and  Petatlan,  the  three  on  the  first  three  rivers  of  Sinaloa, 
and  says  they  are  of  “varias  lenguas.”  According  to 
Zapata  (401)  the  inhabitants  of  the  pueblo  of  Ocoroni,  per-  „ 
taining  to  the  “partido”  of  Tehueco,  in  Sinaloa,  and  sit¬ 
uated  fifteen  or  sixteen  leagues  southeast  of  Mochicagui, 
spoke  a  distinct  idiom  called  Ocoroni.  Orozco  y  Berra 
(1:333)  gives  it  as  distinct,  inserts  it  in  his  list  of  languages, 
and  places  it  on  his  map  adjoining  Yacoregue  on  the  east. 
Sevin  (xxx,  12)  says:  “Towards  the  town  of  El  Fuerte. 
and  farther  north,  we  find  the  Mayos  Indians,  to  which 
belong  also  the  tribes  Quasare,  Ahome,  and  Ocoronis.”  As 
there  is  some  doubt  in  regard  to  this  last  statement,  and 
as  Orozco  y  Berra  has  evidently  marked  the  space  on  his 
map  with  doubt,  the  name  is  omitted  from  our  map.  It  is 
probable  that  the  language  was  Tehueco,  or  a  dialect  of  it. 

Same  remark  as  for  Tahue. 

The  Piros,  mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:325-326)  as 
inhabiting  pueblos  on  the  Rio  Grande  near  the  present  town 
of  El  Paso,  and  speaking  the  Piro  language,  which  he  places 
in  his  list  of  unclassified  languages,  were  in  fact  a  tribe 
occupying  numerous  pueblos  east  of  and  along  the  Rio 
Grande  north  of  El  Paso  nearly  to  Albuquerque.  Bancroft 
(hi,  714)  gives  a  copy  of  what  purports  to  be  the  Lord’s 
Prayer  in  this  language.  The  position  of  the  language 
appears  to  have  been  determined  with  comparative  cer¬ 
tainty  from  a  vocabulary  obtained  by  J.  R.  Bartlett.  From 
this  Gatschet  (416-417)  brings  it  into  the  stock  of  the  Rio 
Grande  pueblos  called  Tanoan,  and  makes  it  the  type  of 
one  of  the  divisions  of  this  stock. 

Ribas  (380)  mentions  the  Sisibotaris  as  a  sub  tribe  of  the  Lower 
Pima,  but  does  not  say  their  language  is  distinct,  nor  does 
Orozco  y  Berra  give  the  name  in  his  list  of  languages. 
Alegre  (n,  124)  says  they  dwelt  in  some  beautiful  valleys 
surrounded  by  mountains  not  very  high,  that  they  were 
docile  and  different  from  the  Yaqui  and  Mayo,  quoting  from 
Ribas,  but  adds  nothing  in  regard  to  their  language. 
Unless  referring  to  Balbi’s  statement,  Orozco  y  Berra  (1 : 353) 
seems  to  make  the  mistake  of  calling  them  a  subtribe  of 
the  Upper  Pima,  when  immediately  below  (1  : 353,  58)  he 
places  them  with  the  Lower  Pima. 

A  semi-nomadic  tribe  about  Casas  Grandes,  Chihuahua,  and 
El  Paso.  Affinities  unknown. 

This  is  mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  (1  :  336)  as  one  of  the 
extinct  languages  of  Sinaloa.  See  Batucos,  above. 

Mentioned  by  Ribas  (215)  in  connection  with  the  Guazapares, 
Chinipas,  and  Hios,  and  as  residing  in  the  sierras,  hence 
along  the  southwestern  boundary  of  the  Tarahumare  terri¬ 
tory.  According  to  Zapata  (390),  the  pueblo  of  Santa  Maria 


36 


BUREAU  OP  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Magdalena  de  Temoris  was  situated  in  the  partido  of  Santa 
Teresa  de  Guazapares,  and  spoke  the  same  language,  that 
is,  Guazapare,  a  dialect  of  Tarahumare  (Orozco  y  Berra, 
1  : 324,  326). 

Tiburones . A  name  sometimes  applied  to  the  Seri,  especially  those  resid¬ 

ing  on  Tiburon  island  (McGee,  128  et  seq.). 

Torames .  Seems  to  have  been  a  name  applied  to  certain  Indians  living 

in  the  district  of  Zentispac,  in  Jalisco,  and  bordering  on 
the  Cora  and  Tepehuane.  An  associated  group  was  known 
as  Zayahuecos  (Orozco  y  Berra,  1  :  278).  Nothing  is  said  by 
this  author  in  regard  to  their  language. 

Zuaques  (Suaqui).  ...  These  are  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Zuaques,  heretofore 

described  as  belonging  to  the  Yaqui  group.  It  is  properly 
Suaqui  and  denotes  merely  the  Pima  inhabitants  of  Suaqui, 
a  pueblo  in  the  extreme  northern  portion  of  the  Lower 
Piman  territory. 

Concho 

In  passing  to  the  northern  central  and  northeastern  districts  one 
enters  a  region  where  nearly  all  the  aboriginal  languages  have  become 
extinct,  and  the  little  that  remains  on  record  in  regard  to  them  is 
not  sufficient  to  make  possible  their  classification  with  any  degree 
of  certainty.  The  most  that  can  be  done  is  to  gather  up  the  scat¬ 
tered  notices  of  them  found  in  the  early  Spanish  writings  and  from 
these  lay  off  the  areas  in  such  manner  as  seems  most  consistent  with 
the  data.  This  has  been  done  by  Orozco  y  Berra,  who  had  access 
not  only  to  the  published  works  but  also  to  the  manuscript  docu¬ 
ments.  His  map,  therefore,  has  been  followed  somewhat  closely  so 
far  as  this  region  is  concerned. 

The  Concho  resided  immediately  east  of  the  Tarahumare,  chiefly 
along  the  river  that  bears  their  name,  from  near  its  headwaters  to  its 
junction  with  the  Rio  Grande  del  Norte.  The  exact  lateral  bounda¬ 
ries  of  the  territory  occupied  are  not  known,  those  given  on  the 
map  being  largely  conjectural.  Alegre  (n,  58)  says  this  “nacion,  ” 
sufficiently  numerous,  extended  to  the  banks  of  the  Rio  Grande  del 
Norte;  that  they  were  confined  on  the  north  by  the  marshes  and  on 
the  south  held  some  pueblos  of  the  Tepehuane;  and  “  Valle  de  Santa 
Barbara.” 

Orozco  y  Berra  (1:325)  says  they  spoke  a  “particular  language 
called  Concha.”  Although  this  statement  is  not  sufficient  of  itself 
to  indicate  that  it  was  without  any  known  or  supposed  affinities, 
what  follows  in  the  same  connection  and  in  his  classification  (1:55) 
indicates  that  he  considered  it  a  distinct  dialect  of  his  “Mexicano,” 
under  which  he  classifies  it,  thus  bringing  it  into  the  Nahuatlan 
family. 

It  is  asserted  by  Hervas  and  others  that  the  missionaries  contended 
that  they  spoke  a  dialect  of,  or  a  language  related  to,  the  Mexican — • 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  37 

that  is  to  say,  belonging  to  the  Nahuatlan  stock.  If  it  be  true  that 
one  of  the  missionaries  wrote  an  “Arte  y  Vocabulario”  in  this 
language,  as  asserted  by  Ludewig  (52)  on  the  authority  of  Arlegui 
and  De  Souza,  this  evidently  shows  sufficient  study  of  the  language 
to  have  given  some  knowledge  of  its  affinities.  That  it  could  not 
have  been  related  to  the  Athapascan  group  seems  to  be  indicated 
by  this  evidence. 

The  several  missions  among  the  Concho  gave  the  missionaries  a 
good  opportunity  of  studying  their  language  and  customs,  and,  where 
Indians  of  more  than  one  language  were  collected,  of  comparing  dia¬ 
lects.  For  example,  we  learn  from  Arlegui  (97)  that  there  were 
gathered  at  the  Convento  of  the  Valle  de  S.  Bartholome  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  Concho,  Tarahumare,  and  Toboso. 

On  the  whole,  the  evidence  seems  strong  enough  to  warrant  us 
in  placing  the  tribe  in  the  Nahuatlan  family. 

Toboso 

According  to  the  conclusion  reached  by  Orozco  y  Berra,  as  shown 
on  his  map,  the  Toboso  occupied  the  region  immediately  east  of  the 
Concho  and  extending  northward  from  a  little  below  the  twenty- 
seventh  degree  of  north  latitude  to  the  Bio  Grande  del  Norte,  join¬ 
ing  the  Pakawan  group  on  the  east  and  the  Laguneros  (Orozco’s 
Irritilas)  on  the  south.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:308-309)  says  they 
spread  about  the  Bolson  de  Mapimi,  and  committing  depredations 
in  Chihuahua  and  Durango,  as  on  the  missions  of  Parras,  and  some 
of  those  in  Coahuila  and  the  north  of  Nuevo  Leon. 

Villa-Senor  y  Sanchez  (n,  296-297)  associates  them  with  a  tribe 
or  people  he  names  Gabilanes,  and  locates  them,  or  part  of  them, 
in  a  region  on  the  border  line  of  Coahuila  and  Nueva  Vizcaya,  called 
the  “Cuesta  de  los  muertos.”  He  gives  as  the  number  of  Toboso  of 
this  group  some  90  or  100  families.  At  another  place  in  the  same  vol¬ 
ume  (349)  he  mentions  as  tribes  living  in  this  desert  region  and 
stretching  along  the  banks  of  the  Bio  Grande,  including  part  of  the 
lands  of  Coahuila  and  northward,  the  Toboso,  Gabilanes,  “Tripas 
blancas,”  Xicarillas,  and  others,  some  of  which  were  undoubtedly 
Apache. 

It  would  seem  from  these  items  of  evidence,  from  the  additional 
fact  that  the  Toboso  are  several  times  spoken  of  by  the  early  author¬ 
ities  as  being  joined  with  the  Apache  in  their  raids,  and  from  the 
savage,  predatory  character  ascribed  to  them,  that  Orozco  y  Berra 
is  justified  in  classifying  them  with  the  Apache  (1  :309). 

The  Cocoyome  and  Cabezas,  which  he  mentions  in  the  reference 
given,  appear  to  have  been  embraced  by  him  under  Toboso.  How¬ 
ever,  it  is  proper  to  state  that  Morfi  (418)  appears  to  distinguish 
between  the  Toboso  and  the  Apache,  but  gives  them  like  cliarae- 


38 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


Tbull.  44 


teristics.  This  distinction  was  at  most  probably  nothing  more  than 
dialectic,  and  possibly  only  in  name.  It  is  justifiable,  therefore,  con¬ 
sidering  the  data,  to  accept  Orozco  y  Berra’s  conclusion. 

Bancroft  (i,  610)  says,  “The  Tobosos  are  north  of  the  Tarahumares 
and  in  the  Mission  of  San  Francisco  de  Coahuila,  in  the  State  of 
Coahuila,”  but  this  is  evidently  erroneous  unless  the  reference  is  to 
scattered  divisions.  The  location  given  on  his  map  corresponds  with 
this  statement,  the  Tarahumare  being  placed  along  the  extreme 
southern  border  of  the  state  of  Chihuahua.  In  the  same  volume 
(572)  he  says,  “East  of  the  Tarahumares,  in  the  northern  part  of 
the  first-named  state  [Chihuahua],  dwell  the  Conchos;”  and  the 
latter  are  placed  on  his  map  in  the  northern  part  of  Chihuahua. 

Pakawan 

Coahuilteco  was  adopted  by  Maj.  J.  W.  Powell  as  the  basis  of  a 
family  name,  Coahuiltecan,  which  appears  to  have  included  numer¬ 
ous  small  tribes  in  southern  Texas  and  the  adjoining  portions  of 
Mexico  along  the  lower  part  of  the  Rio  Grande  del  Norte,  but  it  has 
been  thought  by  the  present  writer  that  the  native  name,  Pakawan, 
used  by  Gatschet,  is  more  appropriate.  Major  Powell  remarks  as  fol¬ 
lows  (68) : 

On  page  63  of  his  Geografia  de  las  Lenguas  de  Mexico,  1864,  Orozco  y  Berra  gives  a 
list  of  the  languages  of  Mexico  and  includes  Coahuilteco,  indicating  it  as  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  Coahuila,  Nuevo  Leon  and  Tamaulipas.  He  does  not,  however,  indicate 
its  extension  into  Texas.  It  would  thus  seem  that  he  intended  the  name  as  a  gen¬ 
eral  designation  for  the  language  of  all  the  cognate  tribes  ...  In  his  statement  that 
the  language  and  tribes  are  extinct  this  author  was  mistaken,  as  a  few  Indians  still 
(1886)  survive,  who  speak  one  of  the  dialects  of  this  family,  and  in  1886  Mr.  Gatschet 
collected  vocabularies  of  two  tribes,  the  Comecrudo  and  Cotoname,  who  live  on  the 
Rio  Grande,  at  Las  Prietas,  State  of  Tamaulipas. 

Bartolome  Garcia  in  his  “  Manual  para  administrar  los  Santos 
Sacramentos”  (title-page)  names  17  tribes  speaking  dialects  of  this 
language.  Adolph  Uhde  (120  et  seq.)  gives  the  names  and  locations 
of  74,  based  on  previous  works  and  his  personal  observations.  It  is 
scarcely  possible,  however,  that  these  should  be  understood  as  tribes. 

As  the  data  are  not  sufficient  to  justify  any  attempt  to  locate  the 
tribes  or  subtribes  which  dwelt  south  of  the  Rio  Grande,  except 
those  identified  by  Doctor  Gatschet,  the  writer  has  followed  Orozco 
y  Berra  substantially  in  the  area  assigned  to  this  family.  Beyond 
this,  with  the  exceptions  mentioned,  all  is  uncertainty  and  any 
conclusion  mere  guesswork. 

Laguneros 

The  people  included  by  Orozco  y  Berra  under  the  name  “Irritilas” 
are  those  to  whom  the  missionaries  and  earlier  authorities  applied 
the  term  “Laguneros”  adopted  in  the  present  work,  the  name 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  39 

Irritila  having  been  selected  by  Orozco  y  Berra  because  it  was  given 
by  Ribas  and  some  other  early  writers  as  the  name  of  one  of  the 
tribes  or  subtribes  of  the  Laguneros.  The  principal  region  occupied 
by  them  lay  about  the  lakes  of  the  table-lands  of  Mapimi,  of  which 
the  most  important  was  the  Laguna  de  Parras  (or  San  Pedro).  The 
brief  statement  by  Ribas  (669)  in  regard  to  location  is  given  in  the 
note  below/  where  it  is  seen  that  he  almost  confines  them  to  the 
region  about  the  Laguna  de  San  Pedro. 

The  southwestern  boundary  of  the  area  appears  to  be  approxi¬ 
mately  determined  by  another  statement  of  the  same  author  (673), 
that  Cuencame,  a  pueblo  on  the  Rio  Nazas,  8  leagues  southwest  of 
the  lake,  was  peopled  by  Zacatecos.  On  the  other  hand,  however, 
it  is  uncertain  what  languages  were  spoken  by  the  Laguneros  and 
what  were  their  affinities.  The  author  last  quoted  indicates  that 
at  the  founding  of  the  Parras  mission  by  Father  Juan  Agustin  the 
Zacatec  language  was  used,  at  least  in  part.  He  states,  however, 
in  the  chapter  following,  that  Zacatecos  came  to  the  mission  and 
joined  those  of  the  locality.  In  chapter  x  he  refers  to  the  “Iritiles” 
as  one  of  the  several  “naciones”  'of  the  Laguna,  and  speaks  of  a 
“  cacique  de  los  que  llamaua  Iritilas.” 

Alegre  (i,  380)  says  the  people  along  the  Nazas  river  and  about 
the  lake  spoke  rudely  (“  groseramente  ”)  the  Mexican  language 
(about  the  year  1600).  In  another  place  (i,  416)  he  mentions,  as  in 
this  region,  the  Ochoes,  a  ferocious  and  inhuman  people,  and  the 
Alamamas,  a  less  barbarous  people.  The  statement  is  made  (Doc. 
Hist.  Mex.,  4th  s.,  hi,  33,  under  the  title  “Del  Anua  del  ano  de 
1596”)  that  the  Indians  dwelling  along  the  Nazas  river  were  Zaca¬ 
tecos,  but  those  at  the  “Laguna ”  are  referred  to  as  of  another  1  ‘gente,” 
the  name  of  which  is  not  given.  The  same  volume  (54)  mentions 
Irritila  and  Mexicana  as  languages  spoken,  the  former  being  the  idiom 
proper  to  that  particular  locality.  On  a  following  page  (58)  are 
mentioned  the  following  “naciones”  as  coming  from  the  surround¬ 
ing  country  to  join  the  Irritila  in  their  religious  festivities — Mio- 
pacoas,  Meviras,  Hoeras,  and  Maiconeras,  and  as  coming  from  the 
lake,  the  Paogas  and  Caviseras,  Vassapalles  and  Ahomamas,  and 
the  Yanabopos  and  Daparabopos  (mentioned  in  pairs,  as  named 
here).  However,  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  these  were  all  tribes  or 
even  subtribes,  but  mere  bands,  hence  this  reference  can  not  be 
accepted  as  indicative  of  so  many  different  idioms. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  data  regarding  the  tribes  of  the 
region  marked  off  by  Orozco  y  Berra,  under  the  name  Irritila,  are 
not  sufficient  to  justify  any  decided  conclusion  regarding  their  lin- 


1  Y  de  los  que  nobran  Laguneros,  poblados  las  margenes  de  la  laguna  que  llaman  Grande  de  san  Pedro, 
y  algunos  dellos  en  las  isletas  que  haze  la  ruisraa  laguna.  A  la  cabegera  desta  doctrina,  y  Mission,  dieron 
los  Espanoles  nombre  de  Parras. 


40 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


guistic  affinities.  The  intimate  relations  of  the  Laguneros  with  the 
Zacatecos,  however,  lead  to  the  suggestion  that  these  two  groups  were 
probably  linguistically  related. 

Zacateco 

The  Zacateco  inhabited  the  state  of  Zacatecas  and  part  of  Durango, 
more  especially  those  portions  in  the  drainage  area  of  Nazas  river. 
Orozco  y  Berra  on  his  map  bounds  their  area  on  the  north  by  that 
of  the  Irritila,  on  the  west  by  that  of  the  Tepehuane,  and  on  the 
east  by  that  of  the  Guachichile.  On  the  south  they  are  brought 
into  relation  with  the  Cora  and  some  small  tribes  (1 : 285,  319). 

It  would  perhaps  be  appropriate  to  allude  here  to  that  undefined 
group  designated  by  the  name  Chichimeca,  as  the  tribe  now  referred 
to  was  certainly  included  therein,  but  what  is  to  be  said  on  that 
subject  will  be  given  under  a  separate  heading  after  a  discussion  of 
the  Guachichile. 

That  there  was  a  distinct  tribe  known  under  the  name  Zacateco, 
and  that  this  tribe  spoke  its  own  appropriate  idiom,  are  facts  too 
well  established  to  admit  of  doubt.  Ribas  (676),  quoting  from  a 
letter  of  Padre  Juan  Agustin,  one  of  the  first  missionaries  to  that 
section,  says  they  gave  religious  instruction  to  the  Indians  in  the 
Zacateco  language,  which  they  had  acquired.  Mota  Padilla  (194) 
connects  the  Cazcan  with  the  Zacateco  as  speaking  the  same 
language.  On  the  other  hand,  Plervas  (311)  maintains  that  the  lan¬ 
guage  was  Mexican.  He  says  their  name,  the  names  of  their  “pobla- 
ciones,”  and  of  their  rivers,  are  Mexican.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1  :285) 
agrees  with  Hervas  on  the  point  mentioned,  as  he  says  the  Zacateco 
have  their  proper  idiom,  which  is  here  classified  as  a  Mexican  dialect. 
If  it  be  true,  as  stated  by  this  author  (2:644),  that  an  “Arte  y 
Vocabulario”  of  the  Zacatec  language  was  written  by  Father  Pedro 
Espinareda,  there  is  in  this  fact  quite  conclusive  evidence  that  the 
missionaries  recognized  the  language  spoken  by  the  Zacateco  as  at 
least  idiomatically  distinct  from  the  other  known  tongues  and  as 
sufficiently  varied  to  require  a  special  acquaintance  therewith  to  give 
religious  instruction  to  the  natives  speaking  it. 

Unless  the  Cazcan  and  Teule  Chichimeca  were  connected  with 
them,  there  are  no  recognized  subtribes  of  the  Zacateco. 

Guachichile 
{Synonym:  Cuachichiles) 

This  tribe,  or  group,  says  Orozco  y  Berra,  occitpied  an  immense 
area,  embracing  parts  of  the  present  states  of  Zacatecas,  San  Luis 
Potosi,  Nuevo  Leon,  and  Coaliuila.  According  to  his  map,  they  con¬ 
nected  on  the  north  with  the  Irritila  (Laguneros),  on  the  west  with 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  41 

the  Zacateco,  and  on  the  south  and  southeast  with  the  Otomi.  The 
missions  established  among  these  Indians  by  the  Franciscans,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  author  last  quoted  (who  gives  as  his  authority  a  manuscript 
in  the  Archivo  General),  were  San  Luis,  Saltillo,  Venado,  Charcas, 
Valle  de  Atotonilco,  Pinos,  Asuncion  Tlaxcalilla,  and  San  Miguel 
Mezquitic. 

Their  language,  says  Orozco  y  Berra  (J:285),  was  distinct.  He 
says  also,  in  another  place  (1  :298),  “su  lengua  ‘era  propia/  y  es 
una  de  las  que  han  desaparecido.”  Laet  (281)  says  that  it  was  dif¬ 
ferent  from  that  of  the  Zacateco.  Arlegui  (86),  speaking  of  the 
natives  at  and  about  the  Convento  of  Asuncion  de  Tlascalilla,  one 
of  those  mentioned  above,  calls  them  “  Guachichiles  Chichime- 
cos.”  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:  280)  appears  to  bring  together  the  Cazcan 
and  the  Guachichile  as  pertaining  to  the  “Teules  Chichimecas.” 
When  referring  to  the  Indians  of  the  region  under  consideration, 
Mota  Padilla  usually  terms  them  Chichimecas.  These  people  are 
classed  as  Nahuatlan,  on  the  authority  of  Doctor  Hrdlicka,  who 
states  that  the  most  intelligent  man  among  the  Huichol  told  him 
that  Guachichil  was  the  ancient  name  of  his  tribe.  ^Doctor  Hrdlicka 
adds  that  the  Huichol  to  this  day  go  over  to  San  Luis  Potosi  to 
camp  during  certain  seasons  of  the  year.  This  fact  would  account 
for  Orozco  y  Berra’s  puzzle  in  not  finding  Huichol  referred  to  in  the 
early  narratives. 

The  Term  Chichimeca 

It  is  probable  that  this  term  should  be  given  a  somewhat  more 
definite  signification  than  philologists  appear  disposed  to  accord  to 
it.  That  it  has  been  used  in  the  past  in  widely  different  senses  is 
true,  but  when  the  more  extravagant  applications  are  cast  aside 
and  the  others  are  carefully  studied,  the  use  of  the  term  is  found 
to  be  more  limited.  The  fact  that  it  has  been  interpreted  as  a 
term  of  contempt  signifying  “dogs,”  or  “dog  people,”  even  if 
correct  (although  it  is  really  doubtful),  does  nop  necessarily  mean 
that  it  was  applied  by  those  with  whom  it  originated  to  any 
and  every  barbarous  people.  When  this  elimination  shall  have 
taken  place,  the  name  .will  be  found  to  include  people  of  more  than 
one  stock,  yet  it  seems  to  have  had  a  geographical  limitation,  and  if 
the  Otomi,  or  that  portion  of  this  stock  usually  included,  be  excluded, 
there  appears  to  be  to  some  extent  a  linguistic  signification. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  quote  authorities  to  show  that  the  name 
Chichimeca  was  applied  geographically  to  tribes  living  north  of 
Mexico  City,  as  this  is  generally  admitted.  The  range  may  be  fur¬ 
ther  limited,  as  follows:  It  does  not  appear  that  the  name  was  ever 
applied  to  the  Tepehuane  in  Durango,  or  to  any  tribe  living  north 
or  west  of  them;  it  was  never  applied  to  the  Cora  on  the  southwest, 
8347°— Bull.  44—11 - 4 


42 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


though  the  Teule  and  the  Cazcan,  residing  immediately  southeast  of 
the  Cora,  were  included  by  some  authorities.  On  the  south  the 
name  reached  into  the  vale  of  Anahuac,  but  in  this  direction  its 
application  was  very  indefinite,  being  based  largely  on  more  or  less 
mythical  traditions.  On  the  southeast  the  range  was  certainly 
bounded  by  the  Huasteca.  On  the  east  and  northeast  it  does  not 
appear  to  have  included  the  Tamaulipecan  or  the  Coahuiltecan 
tribes.  Nor  does  it  seem  to  have  extended  northward  into  the 
regions  assigned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  to  the  Toboso  and  the  Concho. 
This  summary  indicates  as  the  area  over  which  the  name  may  have 
extended  the  sections  marked  on  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map — Zacateco, 
Teule  and  Cazcan,  Guachicliile,  Irritila,  Paine,  and  Otomi. 

It  may  be  supposed  that  the  name  Chicliimeca  at  first  was  applied 
indefinitely  to  all  the  wild  and  unknown  tribes  north  of  the  City  of 
Mexico,  and  that,  as  exploration  progressed  and  more  definite  infor¬ 
mation  was  obtained,  one  tribe  after  another  was  eliminated  from 
the  scope  of  the  term.  This,  however,  is  a  supposition  which  does 
not  appear  to  be  supported  by  the  facts. 

A  few  of  the  early  statements  bearing  on  the  subject  are  here  pre¬ 
sented.  Quoting  from  a  manuscript  of  1579  by  Gabriel  de  Chavez, 
Orozco  y  Berra  (1:246-247)  says  of  the  “Senorio  of  Meztitlan,” 
the  country  of  the  Meztitlateco,  a  Nahuatlan  tribe  closely  related 
to  the  Aztec,  that  it  (the  Sehorio)  extended  throughout  all  the  sierra, 
bounded  (on  the  east)  by  the  Huasteca;  that  Xelitla  was  the  most 
westerly  point,  one  coming  into  contact  here  with  the  “barbaros 
Cliichimecas ;  ”  and  that  the  Senorio  was  bordered  on  the  north  by 
the  Chicliimeca.  Following  Pomar,  he  says  (1:241)  the  name 
Tezcoco  is  from  the  term  tetzcotl  in  the  Chicliimeca  language.  Fur¬ 
ther,  he  distinguishes  (1:256-257)  Mexicano  (Aztec)  from  Nahuatl, 
the  latter  being  the  supposed  language  of  the  Toltec,  including  the 
Niquiran  of  Nicaragua,  a  distinction  not  accepted  by  philologists. 
This  is  mentioned,  however,  only  to  introduce  the  statement  by  him 
which  immediately  follows:  “With  respect  to  the  Chicliimeca  we 
judge  that  it  was  a  language  different  from  the  Nahoa,  and  are  satis¬ 
fied  it  has  become  extinct.”  He  then  refers  (1:257)  to  a  statement 
that  at  Pacliuca  in  1579  were  spoken  Otomi,  Mexican,  and  Chichi- 
meca,  the  last  “a  language  not  understood  by  the  others.” 

Again  (1  :  284),  speaking  of  the  Indians  of  Zacatecas,  Orozco  y 
Berra  says: 

As  has  been  a  thousand  times  repeated,  under  the  name  “Chichimecas  ”  are  compre¬ 
hended  collectively  all  the  barbarous  and  wandering  tribes,  but  in  reality  the  name 
corresponds  only  to  the  family  or  families  which  came  from  the  north  and  were  the  pro¬ 
genitors  of  the  nation  which  established  itself  in  the  valley  of  the  kingdom  of  Acolhua- 
can.  In  this  sense  the  Chichimecas  extended  from  Zacatecas  to  Queretaro,  the  Rio 
Tololotlan  forming  the  southern  limit,  occupying  toward  the  east  San  Luis  Potosi,  and 
part  of  southern  Tamaulipas. 


thomas]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  43 

He  adds,  however,  that  they  did  not  all  use  the  same  idiom,  and  that 
those  who  wandered  in  the  lands  of  the  Zacatecas  and  the  Aguas- 
calientes  took  in  common  the  name  “Teules  Chichimecas,”  but  that 
they  were  divided  into  factions  having  particular  idioms.  Of  these 
he  mentions  the  Cazcan,  Tepecano  (who,  however,  as  already  shown, 
were  probably  connected  with  the  Cora),  and  Tecuexe.  Orozco  y 
Berra  considered  Zacateco  a  dialect  of  his  Mexicano.  He  seems  to 
include  also  the  Guachichile  among  the  Cliichimeca,  although  speak¬ 
ing  a  distinct  language  (1  :  285).  The  Indians  of  Aguascalientes  he 
denominates  “Chichimecas  Blancos,”  but  is  not  aware  that  they  bore 
any  relation  to  the  Guachichile,  though  inclined  to  the  belief  that  they 
were  related  to  the  Otomi  (1  :  286). 

Speaking  of  the  Indians  of  Queretaro  (1  :  261),  and  basing  his  con¬ 
clusion  on  a  manuscript  of  1582,  Orozco  y  Berra  says  the  Chichimeca 
of  this  region  were  of  the  Otomi  family.  The  Chichimeca  of  Jalisco 
(next  to  the  borders  of  Guanajuato)  are  believed  by  him  to  have  been 
Chichimecas-Blancos,  hence  of  the  Otomi  family  (1  :  278).  Sahagiin 
(656)  says  the  true  name  of  the  Tolteca  was  Chichimeca.  A  little 
farther  on,  in  the  same  chapter,  he  states  that  the  Chichimeca  form 
three  groups — the  Otomi,  the  Tamime,  and  the  Teo-Chichimeca.  He 
considers  the  last  two  of  the  same  “race”  and  the  more  barbarous 
in  their  customs  and  mode  of  life,  and  states  that  those  who  mingle 
with  the  Mexicanos,  or  Nahua,  speak  Mexican  as  well  as  their  own 
tongue,  and  those  mingling  with  the  Otomi  and  the  Huasteca  speak 
the  languages  of  those  tribes  as  well  as  they  do  their  own. 

Hervas  (298)  says  that  north  of  the  Otomi  were  the  Chichimecas  who 
did  not  speak  the  Mexican  language.  Perez  de  Bibas  (lib.  12,  cap.  2) 
refers  to  their  location  as  north  of  the  City  of  Mexico,  of  their  wild  and 
barbarous  habits,  and  of  their  division  into  numerous  tribes  speaking 
various  languages,  but  gives  no  particulars  in  regard  to  these  idioms. 

The  following  information  with  regard  to  them  is  given  by  Villa- 
Senor  y  Sanchez  (ii,  lib.  3,  cap.  3).  At  Zelaya,  or  in  its  jurisdiction 
there  were  “2,650  families”  of  the  nation  Otomi,  descendants  of  the 
Chichimeca,  who  peopled  these  parts  before  the  Conquest.  Again 
(ii,  lib.  .3,  cap.  9),  referring  to  San  Luis  Potosi,  this  author  says 
it  was  on  the  frontiers  of  the  Chichimeca.  He  states  also  in  the  same 
chapter  that  some  of  these  Indians  were  converted  at  the  mission 
near  the  pueblo  of  Santa  Catarina  Martyrs  de  Rio  Verde.  This  indi¬ 
cates  that  the  name  Chichimecas  was  still  actually  applied  in  his 
day  (1746).  In  the  same  work  (n,  lib.  3,  cap.  10)  he  estimates  the 
Indians  of  the  jurisdiction  of  San  Pedro  Guadalcazar  at  about  2,000 
families,  all  Chichimeca,  some  of  whom  had  accepted  the  holy  faith, 
and  the  various  connected  districts  at  3,000  families,  all  Chichimeca. 
He  speaks  in  like  manner  of  these  Indians  at  other  places,  recognizing 
them  at  that  day  as  known  by  this  name. 


44 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Taking  all  these  facts  into  consideration,  it  is  believed  that  a  careful 
study  of  the  subject  would  result  in  a  more  definite  application  of  the 
name,  at  least  geographically.  However,  it  has  received  no  lin¬ 
guistic  consideration  in  the  present  paper,  the  majority  of  the  groups 
formerly  included  under  the  name  being  herein  placed  in  the  Nahua- 
tlan  family. 

Tamaulipeco 

No  attempt  will  be  made  at  this  time  to  determine  the  tribes  or 
subtribes  of  the  area  so  designated  by  Orozco  y  Berra  on  his  map, 
further  than  what  will  be  found  in  the  notes  below  (page  45)  on 
“  Names  of  tribes  in  northeastern  Mexico  not  marked  on  the  map.” 

PlSONE  AND  JANAMBRE 

Orozco  y  Berra  locates  the  area  over  which  these  tribes  wandered 
at  the  southwest  of  the  Tamaulipeco  district,  and  says  (1:  298-299) 
it  extended  from  the  valley  of  the  Purisima  on  the  south  to  the  Rio 
Blanco  on  the  north,  being  bounded  on  the  west  by  the  district  of 
the  Guacliicliiles.  However,  according  to  his  map,  it  connects  on 
the  southwest  with  the  district  assigned  to  the  Paine.  He  says 
(1:296)  that  the  Pisone  and  Xanambre  (Janambre)  belong  to 
the  same  “family”  and  speak  the  same  language,  which  is  “par¬ 
ticular.”  Arlegui  (115),  speaking  of  the  Mission  of  San  Antonio, 
says  it  was  vexed  by  a  warlike  nation  called  Janambre.  Orozco  y 
Berra  (1 : 292,  293)  speaks  of  them  in  like  manner. 

Yilla-Senor  (ii,  56)  locates  some  of  the  Indians  of  these  tribes, 
somewhat  definitely,  at  20  leagues  to  the  east  of  the  pueblo  of  Tula. 

These  tribes  are  now  extinct,  but  they  seem  to  have  been  in  ex¬ 
istence  as  late  as  the  first  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

Olive 

Orozco  y  Berra  locates  on  his  map  a  small  tribe  with  this  name 
in  the  extreme  southern  portion  of  the  Tamaulipeco  district,  on  the 
southeastern  border  of  the  Pisone  and  Janambre  territory.  The 
name  “Olive”  is  retained,  as  he  informs  us,  because  the  proper 
native  name  is  unknown.  Nicolas  Leon  omits  the  tribe  from  his 
classification.  . 

This  author  (Orozco  y  Berra)  says  they  resided  in  “Horcasitas,” 
near  San  Francisco  Xavier  mission.  According  to  his  authorities, 
they  were  recent  emigrants  from  “Florida,”  i.  e.,  the  region  between 
the  Rio  Grande  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  had  a  knowledge  of  firearms, 
and  were  light  colored  (1 :  293).  The  language  is  extinct. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  45 


Names  of  Tribes  in  Northeastern  Mexico  not  Considered 

Separately 

This  is  the  proper  place  to  allude  to  the  names  of  the  supposed 
tribes  or  subtribes  of  northeastern  and  eastern  Mexico  mentioned 
by  early  Spanish  authors,  but  not  marked  on  the  accompanying 
map.  As  given  in  Orozco  y  Berra’s  list,  these  are  numerous,  but 
when  examined  are  found  to  be  limited  mostly  to  the  present 
states  of  Coahuila  and  Tamaulipas,  of  which,  with  very  few  excep¬ 
tions,  nothing  more  can  be  said  than  that  they  are  found  in  lists  or 
merely  mentioned  without  particulars.  The  present  author’s  method 
is  therefore  reversed  here,  and  allusion  is  made  to  but  very  few 
of  these  names,  of  which  some  particulars  are  available. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  most  of  those  mentioned  as  in  Coahuila, 
chiefly  along  the  Bio  Grande,  were  Apache  and  Lipan,  especially 
the  former.  The  names  near  the  Gulf  coast,  in  part  at  least,  may 
refer  to  the  remnants  of  tribes  forced  thither  by  the  stronger  tribes 
of  the  interior.  Orozco  y  Berra  places  on  his  map,  on  the  Bio 
Grande  near  its  mouth,  the  following  names : 


Pintos 

Comesacapemes 

Auyapemes 

Tanaquiapemes 

Catanamepaques 

Uscapemes 

Ayapaguemes 

Saulapaguemes 

Gummesacapemes 

and  in  Tamaulipas 

the  following: 

/ 

Tamaulipecos 

Caribayes 

Comecrudos 

Canaynes 

Mariguanes 

Malinchenos 

Borrados 

Panguayes 

Ancasiguais 

Quinicuanes 

Anacana 

Comeeamotes 

Tedexenos 

Cadinias 

Caramariguanes 

Pasitas 

Guixolotes 

Caramiguais 

Tagualilos 

Pintos? 

Aretines 

Orozco  y  Berra  in  his  Tamau- 
lipeco  area,  and  north  of  Panuco  river,  while  south  of  the  river  are 
only  the  well-known  tribes,  Huasteca,  etc. 

Of  these  names  but  little  can  be  said,  as  all,  or  nearly  all,  are  now 
extinct.  Doctor  Gatschet1  in  1886  found  some  twenty-five  of  the 
Comecrudo  at  Las  Prietas,  Tamaulipas.  The  Cotoname  were  prac¬ 
tically  extinct,  but  one  man  being  discovered.  He  obtained  also 
information  of  the  existence  at  La  Volsa  of  two  women  of  the  Pinto, 
or  Pakawa,  tribe  who,  it  was  said,  could  speak  their  own  language. 
The  Cotoname  of  Doctor  Gatschet  probably  corresponds  with  Cata- 
namepaques  of  the  above  list.  So  far  as  known,  these  were  the 
only  tribes  not  wholly  extinct  at  the  time  of  Doctor  Gatschet’s  visit 
(1886). 


All  in  the  latter  list  are  located  by 


1  See  Seventh  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  68. 


46 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


No  published  authority  for  any  of  these  names  other  than  Orozco 
y  Berra’s  Geografla  and  what  his  statements  are  based  on  has  been 
.found.  His  authority,  as  he  tells  us  (1:  291),  is  a  manuscript  in  the 
Archivo  General,  by  “  D.  Agustin  Lopez  de  la  Camara  alta.  1757.” 

Otomi 

( Synonym :  Hia-hiu) 

The  Otomi  in  the  limited  sense,  that  is,  the  group  speaking  the 
Otomi  language  and  its  dialects,  occupied  a  large  area  of  central 
Mexico,  extending  from  the  vicinity  of  Mexico  City  northward  to 
22°  N.  lat.,  and  east  and  west  over  nearly  four  degrees  of  longitude, 
joining  the  Huasteca  on  the  northeast,  the  Nahuatlan  on  the  north¬ 
west  and  southeast,  and  the  Tarasco  on  the  southwest.  Orozco 
y  Berra  says  (1:17)  the  language  is  encountered  in  the  state  of 
Mexico,  in  San  Luis  Potosi,  embraces  all  of  Queretaro  (then  including 
the  present  state  of  Hidalgo)  and  a  large  part  of  Guanajuato,  reap¬ 
pearing  with  the  Tepehua  about  the  Totonac  area  and  at  a  point 
on  the  confines  of  Puebla  and  Vera  Cruz.  Languages  related  to 
the  Otomi  proper  are  the  Pame,  the  Mazahua,  and  the  Pirinda.  The 
evidence  Orozco  y  Berra  presents  as  to  the  area  embraced  is  a  list 
of  pueblos  and  curates  in  which  the  Otomi  language  is  known  to 
have  been  spoken. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  quote  the  earlier  authorities,  as  the  name  as 
used  by  them  is  not  sufficiently  definite  to  be  applied  to  the  Otomi 
tribe  in  the  limited  sense.  Although  it  has  been  stated  that  there 
were  numerous  dialects  in  the  speech  of  different  pueblos,  none 
save  those  mentioned  above  have  been  given. 

As  Orozco  y  Berra’s  mapping  will  not  be  followed  in  this  instance 
the  following  statement  by  Prof.  Frederick  Starr  (79-80)  should  be 
considered : 

Where  the  states  of  Hidalgo,  Puebla,  and  Vera  Cruz  come  together  we  find  the 
strangest  interminglings.  There  Aztecs,  Otomis,  Tepehuas,  and  Totonacs  are  sur¬ 
prisingly  sprinkled.  .  .  .  In  regard  to  this  region,  Orozco  y  Berra,  usually  so  valuable, 
becomes  frequently  useless. 

Orozco  y  Berra  in  mapping  the  Otomi  has  given  the  Pame  and 
Mazahua  separate  areas  and  different  colors;  the  Pirinda,  however, 
is  omitted,  as  stated  below.  In  the  map  accompanying  this  paper 
the  different  areas  are  brought  under  one  color,  the  Pirinda  having 
its  area  and  number  as  the  other  divisions. 

A  part  of  the  Otomi,  especially  those  toward  the  northwest,  were 
included  by  some  of  the  early  writers  under  Chichimeca. 

Pame 

The  Pame,  as  located  by  Orozco  y  Berra,  were  bordered  on  the 
north  and  northeast  by  the  Pisone  and  Janambre,  on  the  south- 


Thomas]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  47 

east  by  the  Huasteca,  on  the  south  by  the  Otomi,  and  on  the  west 
by  the  Guachichile.  Their  territory  embraced  parts  of  the  states  of 
Mexico,  Queretaro,  Guanajuato,  and  San  Luis  Potosl. 

As  shown  in  the  note  below,1  Francisco  Palou  gives  them  a  some¬ 
what  extended  area.  Orozco  y  Berra  says  (1:48):  The  Paine  [dialect]  is 
used  in  the  mission  of  Cerro  Prieto,  in  the  state  of  Mexico,  is  extended 
principally  to  the  pueblos  of  San  Luis  Potosl,  and  is  also  met  with 
in  Queretaro  and  in  Guanajuato.’ ’  He  mentions  also  other  pueblos 
in  these  states.  Pimentel  (n,  265)  says  it  was  spoken  in  San  Luis 
de  la  Paz,  the  territory  of  the  Sierra  Gorda,  city  of  Maiz,  Depart¬ 
ment  of  San  Luis  Potosl,  and  in  Purlsima  Concepcion  de  Arnedo  in 
the  Sierra  Gorda. 

According  to  the  last-named  authority  (n,  265)  there  were  three 
dialects  of  this  language — one  spoken  in  San  Luis  de  la  Paz,  one 
in  the  city  of  Maiz,  and  the  third  in  the  Purisima  Concepcion  de 
Arnedo.  No  mention  is  made,  however,  of  corresponding  sub¬ 
tribes  or  clans. 

This  language  has  recently  been  assigned,  with  probable  correct¬ 
ness,  though  not  on  conclusive  evidence,  to  the  Otomi  stock.  Ale¬ 
gre  (i,  282)  pronounces  the  idiom  difficult,  and  compares  these  Indians 
with  the  Otomi  of  the  same  locality  (San  Luis  de  la  Paz),  appar¬ 
ently  indicating  a  belief  in  relationship,  though  not  expressing 
such  an  opinion.  Villa-Senor  y  Sanchez  (ii,  lib.  3,  cap.  8),  speak¬ 
ing  of  the  Indians  about  San  Luis  de  la  Paz,  says  they  are  Pame, 
and,  immediately  after,  that  the  Indians  of  this  section  speak  Otomi. 

Mazahua 

The  Mazahua  area  is  located  on  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map  in  the  south¬ 
western  portion  of  the  state  of  Mexico,  adjoining  the  Tarascan 
territory,  though  the  traditional  evidence  locates  the  Mazahua  more 
to  the  northeast. 

Clavigero  (i,  105-106)  says: 

The  Mazahuas  were  once  apart  of  the  nation  of  the  Otomies,  as  the  languages  of  both 
nations  are  but  different  dialects  of  the  same  tongue.  .  .  .  The  principal  places 
which  they  inhabited  were  on  the  western  mountains  of  the  vale  of  Mexico,  and  formed 
the  province  of  Mazahuacan,  belonging  to  the  crown  of  Tacuba. 

Orozco  y  Berra  (1 : 256)  says  that  in  the  time  of  Aztec  control  this 
tribe  belonged  to  the  “ kingdom”  of  Tlacopan,  its  pueblos  marking 
the  limits  between  it  and  the  Michoacan  territory.  Pimentel  (ii, 
193),  after  quoting  Clavigero’s  statement,  remarks  that  in  his  day 
a  remnant  of  the  tribe  was  found  in  the  district  of  Ixtlahuaca, 
belonging  to  the  department  of  Mexico.  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg 


1  Treinta  leguas  distante  de  la  expresada  Ciudad  de  Queretaro,  y  se  estiende  a  cien  leguas  de  largo,  y 
"treinta  de  ancho,  en  cuyas  brefias  vivian  los  Indios  de  la  Nacion  Paine. — Vida  de  Junipero  Serra,  p.  23 
(fide  Bancroft,  i,  672). 


48 


BUREAU  OF  A  MEET  CAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


(1:  hi,  56),  alluding  apparently  to  an  earlier  date,  says  their  vil¬ 
lages  extended  northward  to  within  a  short  distance  of  the  ancient 
Tollan  or  Tula.  As  usual,  Orozco  y  Berra  determined  the  boundaries 
by  the  pueblos  inhabited  by  people  of  this  tribe.  The  Mazahua 
is  included  in  the  colored  Otomian  area  of  the  map  accompanying 
this  paper. 

PlRINDA 

C Synonym :  Matlaltzinco) 

Orozco  y  Berra  (1:  273)  has  not  marked  on  his  map  the  area  occu¬ 
pied  by  the  people  speaking  this  idiom,  doubtless  because  of  the  fact 
that  it  does  not  appear  that  they  had,  in  the  historical  era,  any 
definite  territory,  a  portion  mingling  with  the  Mexicans,  but  the 
greater  part  occupying  pueblos  in  the  territory  of  the  Tarasco. 
Clavigero  (i,  106)  merely  locates  them  in  the  “  fertile  vale  of  Toluca/7 
which  is  immediately  south  of  the  Mazahuan  territory.  This  state¬ 
ment,  however,  appears  to  refer  to  the  tribe  before  it  was  con¬ 
quered  by  Axayacatl,  “king”  of  Mexico,  as  indicated  by  Pimentel, 
who,  in  connection  with  the  quotation  from  Clavigero,  says,  “anciently 
in  the  valley  of  Toluca.77 

In  the  present  classification  the  author  has  followed  Brinton  by 
including  the  tribe  in  the  Otomian  area. 

Meco 

0 Synonym :  Jonaz) 

Bancroft  (m,  743),  on  what  authority  the  author  is  not  aware, 
identifies  the  people  speaking  this  language  with  the  Serranos.  Never¬ 
theless,  in  this  way  a  difficulty  otherwise  unexplained  is  removed. 
He  locates  them  “in  the  Sierra  Gorda  and  in  Guanahuato.77  But 
Alcedo  (iv,  567)  says  they  five  in  the  pueblo  Soledad  de  las  Canoas, 
in  the  state  of  Queretaro.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:264),  whose  state¬ 
ment  is  more  exact,  says  they  were  gathered  by  the  missionaries  at 
the  newly  founded  pueblo  of  San  Luis  de  la  Paz,  and  connects  them 
with  the  people  of  San  Jose  Vizarron,  in  Queretaro.  He  also  adds: 
“La  parcialidad  de  cliichimecos  que  fue  congregada,  pertenecia  a  la 
familia  de  los  Tonases  6  Jonases  cuya  lengua  se  llamo  Meco  por.  los 
misioneros  lo  mismo  que  denominaron  la  de  los  habitantes  de  San 
Jose  Vizarron.77 

Huasteca 

As  the  relation  of  the  Huastecan  language  to  the  Mayan  stock 
is  well  known,  it  is  necessary  to  note  here  only  the  evidence  relating 
to  the  location  of  the  tribe. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  49 

% 

Marcelo  Alejandre  (162)  says  that,  according  to  tradition,  the 
Huasteca  coming  from  the  north  established  themselves  first  at  the 
place  now  known  as  Altamira,  in  Tamaulipas,  and  afterward  moved 
to  the  left  bank  of  the  Bar  of  Tampico.  Sahagun  (670)  states  that 
they  lived  in  the  province  of  Panuco,  properly  called  Pantlan,  or 
Panotlan.  Pimentel  (i,  5)  says  that  at  the  coming  of  the  Spaniards 
the  place  they  occupied  was  at  the  north  of  the  kingdom  of  Texcoco 
(Tezcuco),  comprehending  the  north  part  of  the  state  of  Vera  Cruz 
and  a  small  part  (“fraccion”)  of  the  bordering  portion  of  San  Luis. 
According  to  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:206),  their  area  extended  along  the 
Gulf  coast  from  Vera  Cruz  to  San  Luis  Potosi,  extending  probably 
some  distance  into  Tamaulipas. 

Totonac 

As  to  their  language  and  history,  as  well  as  to  geographical  posi¬ 
tion,  the  Totonac  are  one  of  the  most  interesting  tribes  of  Mexico. 
The  proper  classification  of  their  language  has  long  been,  and  is  still, 
in  doubt,  so  much  so  that  it  is  usually  given  as  an  independent  stock. 
It  was  on  their  territory  that  Spanish  history  and  Spanish  rule  had 
tlieir  initiation  in  Mexico  and  Central  America,  when  Cortes  appeared 
on  the  scene  in  1519. 

The  area  they  occupied  was  in  the  northern  portions  of  what  are 
now  the  states  of  Vera  Cruz  and  Puebla  and  the  eastern  extremity 
of  Hidalgo,  the  Gulf  coast  forming  the  eastern  boundary,  and  the 
northern  boundary  following  closely  the  twenty-first  parallel  of  north 
latitude. 

According  to  the  Arte  of  D.  Jose  Zambrano,  which  has  been  fol¬ 
lowed  by  subsequent  writers,  the  Totonac  language  was  divided  into 
four  idioms:  Tetikilliati,  spoken  by  the  Tetikilliati  in  the  high  sierras; 
Chakahuaxti,  spoken  by  Chakahuaxti  in  the  pueblos  of  Xalpan  and 
Pantepec;  Tatimolo,  spoken  by  the  Tatimolo  of  the  pueblo  Naolingo; 
and  Ipapana,  spoken  by  the  Ipapana  in  the  missions  of  the  Augus- 
tines.  As  these  idioms  have  not  been  determined  by  subsequent 
investigation,  they  are  omitted.  The  present  tendency  of  linguistic 
opinion  is  to  place  the  Totonac  language  in  the  Mayan  family,  thus 
bringing  it  into  relation  with  the  Huasteca.  The  long  friendly  rela¬ 
tions  between  the  two  tribes  correspond  with  this  opinion.  Orozco 
y  Berra  (1:214)  expressed  his  belief  in  the  relationship  of  the  two 
dialects. 

Tepehua 

The  Tepehua,  which  has  been  given  as  distinct  by  Orozco  y  Berra, 
and  located  on  his  map  along  the  northwestern  border  of  the 
Totonac  territory,  is  in  all  probability  related  to  the  latter  and 
should  be  placed  in  the  same  group.  He  says  that,  joined  to  the  To  to- 


50 


BUKEAU  OF  AMEKICAX  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


nacs  there  is  a  section  formed  of  various  pueblos  where  they  speak 
the  Otomi  and  Tepehua  languages.  The  latter  he  had  not  encoun¬ 
tered  outside  of  this  locality,  and  had  not  been  able  to  learn  whether  it 
resembles  any  of  the  known  languages.  He  adds  further  that  it  is 
spoken  exclusively  only  in  the  pueblo  of  San  Francisco  of  the  curacy 
of  Huayacocotla.  He  considered  the  language  as  confined  to  the 
state  of  Vera  Cruz.  Prof.  Frederick  Starr  (83-84),  quoting  his  state¬ 
ment,  remarks  as  follows :  “  In  this  he  is  in  error.  Huehuetla  (district 
of  Tenango,  Hidalgo)  is  purely  Tepehua,  and  a  large  town,  Tlaxco, 
in  the  state  of  Puebla,  is  in  part  Tepehua.  ”  He  suggests  that  the  lan¬ 
guage  is  probably  related  to  the  Totonac,  and  this  seems  to  be  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  vocabularies  given  in  his  paper.  It  is  therefore 
included  in  the  territory  of  the  latter  on  the  map,  and  should  be 
classified,  as  has  been  said,  as  a  dialect  of  the  Totonac. 

Meztitlaneca 

This  language,  which  belongs  to  the  Nahuatlan  family,  appears 
to  be  a  dialect  of  the  Aztec,  and  its  area  is  included  by  Orozco  y  Berra 
in  his  Mexicano,  without  any  reference  to  the  fact  in  his  text. 
The  subtribe  speaking  the  dialect  inhabited  the  region  north  of 
Tezcuco,  between  the  Sierra  Madre  and  the  Pluastecan  territory 
(1:246-247). 

Although  the  relationship  with  the  Aztec  has  been  a  matter  of  his¬ 
tory  from  the  entry  of  the  Spaniards  to  the  present  time,  the  author 
is  unable  to  refer  to  a  vocabulary  of  the  language. 

Tlascalan 

The  area  occupied  by  the  Tlascala  (or  Tlaxcala)  corresponds  sub¬ 
stantially  with  the  present  state  of  Tlascala.  They  spoke  a  dialect 
of  the  Aztec  or  Mexican  language.  This  is  so  well  understood, 
however,  and  so  frequently  mentioned,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  add 
further  evidence  on  the  subject. 

Cuitlateco 
C Synonym :  Teco) 

Clavigero  (i,  5)  says: 

The  Cuitlatecas  inhabited  a  country  which  extended  more  than  two  hundred  miles 
from  the  north-west  to  the  south-east,  from  the  kingdom  of  Michuacan,  as  far  as  the 
Pacific  Ocean.  Their  capital  was  the  great  and  populous  city  of  Mexcaltepec  upon  the 
coast. 

Orozco  y  Berra  says  (1 : 233)  this  language  was  spoken  in  Ajuchitlan, 
San  Cristobal,  and  Poliutla,  in  the  municipality  of  Ajuchitlan  and 
district  of  the  same  name,  and  in  Atoyac,  in  the  district  and  munici¬ 
pality  of  Tecpan;  and  that  the  province  of  the  Cuitlateco  was  com¬ 
prehended  between  those  of  Zacatula  and  the  Cohuixe.  However, 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  51 

this  writer  and  Pimentel  distinguish  Teca  or  Teco  from  the  Cuitlateco, 
the  former  (1: 196)  giving  as  equivalents  Chocho,Popoloco,Tlapaneco, 
Pupuluca,  and  Yope,  thus  bringing  it  into  relation  with  the Mixe  group, 
while  the  Cuitlateco  is  confessedly  a  Nahuatlan  tongue,  a  mere  idiom 
of  the  Aztec,  though  the  author  quoted  says  he  does  not  attempt  to 
classify  it.  That  the  two  are  merely  different  names  for  the  same 
people  is  clearly  demonstrated  by  F.  Plancarte  (1888). 

In  a  note  to  the  same  article  (26)  Dr.  N.  Leon  quotes  from  a  work  by 
Juan  Joseph  Moreno  the  statement  that  the  language  of  the  Cuitlate- 
cos  was  “a  daughter  of  the  Mexican  or  the  Mexican  barbarized,”  and 
mentions  an  Arte  by  Dr.  Martin  de  Espinosa. 

Tarasco 

{, Synonym :  Miclioacano) 

As  the  only  subjects  engaging  attention  here  are  the  languages  and 
localities,  it  is  unnecessary  to  introduce  evidence  where  these  have 
been  satisfactorily  determined.  As  the  Tarascan  language  is  now 
well  known  as  constituting  a  separate  family,  and  as  the  extent  of  it 
as  given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  on  his  map  is  confirmed  as  correct  by 
Pimentel,  it  is  not  necessary  to  present  further  evidence. 

Aztec 

{Synonym:  Mexicano) 

For  the  reasons  given  above  under  Tarasco  it  is  unnecessary  to  add 
more  here  than  the  following  statement.  As  Orozco  y  Berra,  in  laying 
off  the  territory  in  which  this  language  prevailed,  went  over  all  the 
data  available,  taking  pueblo  after  pueblo  where  it  was  spoken,  it 
is  necessary  only  to  refer  to  his  Geografia,  and  to  add  that  two  small 
areas  in  Sinaloa  given  by  him  under  separate  names,  as  stated  above, 
have  been  included,  and  that  the  sub  tribes  Tlascalan  and  Cuitlateco 
have  been  marked  on  our  map  in  the  Aztec  area.  Orozco  y  Berra 
(1:64)  mentions  as  the  states  in  which  this  language  was  spoken  to 
a  greater  or  less  extent,  Tabasco,  Chiapas,  Oaxaca,  Puebla,  Tlaxcala, 
Guerrero,  Mexico,  Michoacan,  Colima,  San  Luis,  Sinaloa,  Durango, 
Zacatecas,  and  Jalisco.  Professor  Starr  (33-34)  says: 

There  are  people  of  Aztec  blood  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico  from  the  state  of 
Sinaloa  in  the  extreme  North-west  to  the  state  of  Chiapas  in  the  South.  In  Sinaloa, 
Jalisco,  Durango,  San  Luis  Potosi,  Colima,  Vera  Cruz,  Hidalgo,  Oaxaca,  Chiapas,  and 
Tabasco  they  occur,  while  the  states  of  Guerrero,  Mexico,  Tlaxcala,  Morelos,  and 
Puebla  are  in  large  part  occupied  by  them.  In  some  districts  Aztec  is  the  common 
language.  In  the  Republic  there  are  probably  more  than  1,500,000  pure  blood  Indians 
who  speak  the  Aztec  language  (this  includes  the  Tlaxcalans). 

There  is  good  evidence,  nevertheless,  that  much  of  the  area  attributed 
to  them,  at  least  in  northwestern  Mexico,  was  standardized  to  Aztec 


52 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


in  comparatively  modern  times.  At  the  same  time  the  dialects  so 
standardized  were  probably  related  to  Aztec,  and  no  extreme  error 
will  result  from  classifying  them  all  as  Aztec  dialects.  The  entire 
Aztec  area,  as  given  above,  is  consequently  brought  under  the  same 
color  as  the  other  Nahuatlan  dialects  on  the  accompanying  map. 

Mixtec 


According  to  Clavigero  (i,  6) — 

Mixtecapan,  or  the  province  of  the  Mixtecas,  extended  itself  from  Acatlan,  a  place 
distant  an  hundred  and  twenty  miles  from  the  court,  towards  the  south-east,  as  far  as  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  and  contained  several  cities  and  villages,  well  inhabited  and  of  con¬ 
siderable  trade.  To  the  east  of  the  Mixtecas  were  the  Zapotecas. 

Orozco  y  Berra  (1:189)  says  the  Mixtecos  extend  into  the  states 
of  Puebla,  Guerrero,  and  Oaxaca,  occupying  in  these  the  departments 
of  Centro,  Jamiltepec,  and  Teposcolula.  Professor  Starr  (37)  says: 

The  country  occupied  by  the  Mixtecs  extends  eastward  from  the  Pacific  Coast  in  the 
high  mountain  country  of  the  interior.  Their  territory  lies  within  the  states  of  Gue¬ 
rrero,  Puebla,  and  Oaxaca,  but  chiefly  in  the  last. 

The  area  is  usually  divided  into  two  districts:  Mixteca  alta,  or 
high  Mixteca,  and  Mixteca  baja,  or  low  Mixteca;  but  this  division 
appears  to  have  been  given  with  reference  to  topography  rather  than 
to  difference  in  idioms,  though  it  is  said  that  there  are  several  minor 
dialects.  Orozco  y  Berra  mentions  eleven  dialects,  as  follows: 


Tepuzculano,  in  Oaxaca 

Mixteco  of  Yauhuatlan,  in  Oaxaca 

Mixteca  Baja,  in  Puebla  and  Guerrero 

Montanes,  in  Guerrero 

Cuixtlahuac 

Mixteco  of  Tlaxiaco 

Professor  Starr  (37)  says: 


Mixteco  of  Cuilapa 
Mixteco  of  Mictlantongo 
Mixteco  of  Tamazulapa 
Mixteco  of  Xaltepec 
Mixteco  of  Nochiztlan 


The  language  presents  many  dialects — Orozco  listing  eleven,  of  which  that  of  Tepos¬ 
colula  is  claimed  to  be  the  most  important.  Not  only  are  different  towns  said  to  have 
distinct  dialects,  but  even  parts  of  the  same  town. 

No  attempt  has  been  made,  so  far  as  known,  to  determine  the 
differences  between  these  dialects  or  to  locate  them  more  exactly 
than  as  given  by  Orozco  y  Berra. 


Trike 


This  language,  which  belongs  to  the  Zapotecan  family,  is  spoken  by 
a  small  tribe  residing  in  the  central  part  of  the  Mixtec  area,  and  is 
considered  by  Belmar  as  more  directly  related  to  Mixtec. 

Though  giving  the  language  as  distinct  without  classifying  it, 
Orozco  y  Berra  locates  the  tribe  in  four  curacies  in  Tehuantepec  in 
association  with,  or  in  the  vicinity  of,  the  Chontal  (1 :186).  Although 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  53 

in  most  cases  our  best  guide,  it  appears  that  in  this  instance  he  is  in 
error.  Francisco  Belmar,  who  has  made  a  study  of  this  and  other 
related  idioms,  says  the  language  was  spoken  in  only  six  pueblos: 
San  Andres  Chicahuaxtla,  Santo  Domingo  Chicaliuaxtla,  San  Miguel 
Chicahuaxtla,  San  Jose  Chicahuaxtla,  San  Martin  Ytunyosa,  and 
Copala,  pertaining  to  the  districts  of  Tlaxiaco  (Tlajiaco)  and  Juxtla- 
liuaca,  which  are  in  Oaxaca. 

Professor  Starr  (42)  says  none  of  the  towns  mentioned  by  Orozco  y 
Berra  are  Trike;  that  three  are  Chontal,  and  the  fourth  (Tenango) 
is  perhaps  Zapotec,  and  that  the  real  district  of  the  Trike  is  situated 
in  the  high  mountains  of  the  districts  of  Tlaxiaco  and  Juxtlahuaca, 
perhaps  200  miles  in  a  direct  line  from  Orozco  y  Berra’s  location. 
They  form  a  little  island  of  Trike  speech  in  the  midst  of  the  Mixtec 
area.  They  occupy  only  five  of  the  towns  mentioned  by  Belmar, 
San  Miguel  Chicahuaxtla  being  a  Mixtec  town.  The  language  spoken 
at  Copala  differs  somewhat  from  that  spoken  by  the  other  pueblos, 
though  comprehensible  to  them. 

The  area  occupied  by  this  tribe  is  marked  on  the  present  map  in 
accordance  with  this  evidence. 


Chocho 

Orozco  y  Berra  (1  :  196)  asserts  that  this  language,  which  is 
related  to  Mixtec,  has  received  the  name  Chocho  in  Oaxaca;  Popo- 
loco  in  Puebla;  Tlapaneco  in  Guerrero;  Teco  inMiohoacan;  Pupuluca 
in  Guatemala  and  in  ancient  Yope.  As  it  is  now  known  that  Teco 
is  Cuitlateco,  a  Mexican  dialect,  and  that  Pupuluca  is  given  both  as  a 
Mayan  and  a  Lencan  idiom,  these  must  be  excluded;  Yope  also  hav¬ 
ing  dropped  out  of  use,  may  be  dismissed  from  consideration.  This 
leaves  only  Chocho,  Popoloco,  and  Tlapaneco  to  be  considered. 
“Chuclion,”  which  Brinton  adopts  in  his  American  Race,  is  merely  a 
variation  of  the  name  Chocho. 

Professor  Starr  (71)  assures  us  that  in  the  district  he  visited 
there  is  a  clear  recognition  that  the  language  of  the  Chocho  towns  of 
Oaxaca  is  the  same  as  the  Popoloco  of  Puebla,  and  he  is  sustained 

* 

by  Orozco  y  Berra,  but  both  are  mistaken  so  far  as  the  ancient 
Popoloco  language  is  concerned,  which  was  a  dialect  of  Mixe. 
Professor  Starr  does  not  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  Tlapaneco. 

Sahagun  (671)  says  the  Tlapaneco  language  is  precisely  the  same 
as  those  called  Tenime,  Pinome,  Chinquime,  Chochontin,  in  the 
singular  Pinotl,  Cliinquitl,  Choclion.  This  brings  Tlapaneco  into 
the  same  relation  as  that  given  by  Orozco  y  Berra.  The  name 
Chocho  has  therefore  been  applied  to  each  of  the  three  groups  in  the 
present  map. 

The  Chocho  group,  according  to  Professor  Starr,  was  situated  in  the 
district  of  Coixtlahuaca.  This  agrees  with  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map,  in 


54 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


which  the  area  is  around  the  pueblo  of  Coixtlahuaca,  although  he 
does  not  include  it  in  his  list  of  pueblos  (1  :  196). 

The  Tlapanec  group  is  located  by  Orozco  y  Berra  in  Guerrero, 
along  the  southwestern  boundary  of  the  Mixtec  territory.  The 
Popoloco,  as  stated  above  and  demonstrated  by  a  vocabulary  col¬ 
lected  by  Dr.  Berendt,  anciently  spoke  a  Mixe  dialect. 

Amishgo 

{Synonym:  Amusgo,  Amuchco) 

This  language  belongs  to  the  Zapotecan  family  and  appears  to  be 
a  dialect  of  Mixtec.  According  to  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map,  which  is 
followed  here,  the  people  speaking  it  occupied  a  wedge-shaped  area 
extending  northward  from  the  Pacific  coast  into  the  Mixtec  territory 
about  the  middle  of  its  southern  boundary.  Yilla-Senor  y  Sanchez 
(n,  162-163)  refers  to  the  tribe  (subtribe)  and  the  idiom,  but  does 
not  definitely  give  the  location.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  names  of 
several  of  the  pueblos  mentioned  by  Orozco  y  Berra  end  in  tepee, 
indicating  the  presence  of  a  Mexican  element. 

Chatino 

The  Chatino  are  resident  in  Oaxaca,  in  the  departments  of  Centro 
and  Jamiltepec,  and  are  wedged  between  the  Mixtec  and  the 
Zapotec,  extending  from  the  Pacific  coast  northward.  Orozco  y 
Berra  (1:189)  says  merely,  “In  the  departments  of  Centro  and 
Jamiltepec  between  the  Zapotec  and  Mixtec,”  and  gives  a  list  of  the 
pueblos  where  the  language  is  spoken.  He  places  it  in  his  list  of 
unclassified  languages. 

The  author  has  not  succeeded  in  finding  the  evidence  by  which  to 
determine  its  linguistic  relations,  but  following  other  writers  it  has 
been  classed  provisionally  as  Zapotecan. 

Mazateco 

The  Mazatec  tribe  is  located  on  our  map  in  Oaxaca,  along  the 
northern  border  of  the  Zapotec  area  where  the  Puebla  and  Yera  Cruz 
lines  meet,  extending  slightly  into  the  latter.  Orozco  y  Berra  says, 
in  the  department  of  Teotitlan;  Professor  Starr  says,  in  the  districts  of 
Cuicatlan  and  Teotitlan;  Belmar  (2:1)  says,  in  the  district  of  Teotitlan 
del  Camino,  state  of  Oaxaca.  Clavigero  states  that  northward  of  the 
Mixtecas  was  the  province  of  Mazatlan,  the  inhabitants  of  which  were 
called  Mazatecas  (i,  6). 

Orozco  y  Berra  did  not  attempt  to  classify  the  language,  but  Pi¬ 
mentel  was  inclined  to  refer  it  to  the  “  Mixteco-Zapoteco  ”  stock,  or~ 
what  is  here  termed  the  Zapotecan  family.  This  assignment  is  now 
universally  accepted  by  students.  It  seems  to  be  closely  related  to 
Chocho  and  Trike,  especially  the  former.  Belmar  (2:1)  says  the  lan- 


thomas]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  55 


guage  is  divided  into  two  principal  dialects,  Mazateco  and  Izcateco, 
but  makes  no  reference  to  the  respective  localities  in  which  they  are 
spoken,  nor  is  anything  stated  with  respect  to  subtribes. 

CuiCATECO 

The  people  speaking  this  language  are  located  by  Orozco  y  Berra 
in  the  department  of  Teotitlan;  Professor  Starr  says  in  what  is  now 
the  district  of  Cuicatlan.  Their  area  is  marked  by  the  former  and 
also  on  our  map  on  the  northeastern  border  of  the  Mixtec  territory 
and  immediately  south  of  the  Mazatec. 

The  language  belongs  to  the  Zapotecan  family;  it  does  not  appear, 
however,  to  have  been  carefully  studied. 

ClIINANTEC 

According  to  Doctor  Berendt  (Brinton,  3:  144)  the  Chinantec 
language  does  not  appear  to  be  related  to  any  of  the  surrounding 
tongues.  He  suggests  as  probable  that  there  is  to  be  found  in  it  one 
of  the  original  languages  spoken  before  the  advent  of  the  Naliua, 
possibly  the  mythical  Olmec. 

The  people  speaking  this  language  inhabited  Cliinantla  in  the  state 
of  Oaxaca,  on  the  western  border  of  Vera  Cruz,  and  along  the  north¬ 
ern  boundary  of  the  Zapotec  territory.  Orozco  y  Berra  expressed 
the  same  opinion  in  regard  to  the  language  as  that  subsequently 
given  by  Berendt,  above  mentioned.  Pimentel  was  inclined  to  place 
it  in  the  Zapotecan  family,  and  this  is  the  opinion  of  Belmar;  but 
with  our  present  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  language  it  is  best  to 
make  it  the  type  of  a  distinct  stock  or  family. 

Zapotec 


The  Zapotec  group  held  a  large  area  east  of  the  Mixtec  territory, 
including  what  is  known  as  the  Valley  of  Oaxaca.  What  Professor 
Starr  means  by  saying  “east  and  west  of  the  old  Mixtec  territory” 
(45)  is  not  clear.  Clavigero  (i,  6)  says,  “to  the  east  of  the  Mixtecas 
were  the  Zapotecas.”  “The  Zapotecas,”  says  Williams  (226),  “con¬ 
stitute  the  greater  part  of  the  population  of  the  southern  division  of 
the  Isthmus  [of  Tehuantepec].”  According  to  Shufeldt  (125, 
133-134)  the  Zapotec  tribe  inhabits  the  Pacific  plains  and  the  ele¬ 
vated  table-lands  from  Tarifa  to  Petapa.  The  area  given  by  Orozco 
y  Berra  on  his  map  may  be  accepted,  therefore,  as  correct. 

As  the  Zapotec  language  is  well  known  and  is  taken  as  the  basis  of 
comparison,  it  is  necessary  only  to  name  the  dialects  which  are  men¬ 
tioned  by  different  writers.  These  are: 


Zapotec  Netzecho,  which,  according  to 
Villa-Senor  -y  Sanchez  (n,  191-198), 
appears  to  have  been  the  principal  one 
Zapotec  Zaachilla 


Zapotec  Ocotlan 
Zapotec  Etla 
Zapotec  Iztepec 
Zapotec  Cajone 


56 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


But  the  differences  between  these  dialects  appear  to  have  been 
comparatively  slight  and  not  coincident  with  marked  subtribal  dis¬ 
tinctions,  hence  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  place  them  on  the  map. 

The  Mixtec  and  Zapotec  Languages  Compared 

Attention  is  called  to  the  following  question:  Does  the  evidence 
justify  the  association  of  the  Mixtec  and  Zapotec  languages  and 
their  dialects  in  one  stock,  as  they  are  now  usually  classified  by  phi¬ 
lologists?  We  notice  first  that  Friedrich  Muller  (Ab.  1)  objects  to 
this  association,  contending  that  the  two  languages  are  distinct. 

Although  Pimentel  (i,  319)  speaks  of  Zapotecs  and  Mixtecs  as 
“tribus  o  naciones  liermanas,”  he  does  not  attempt  the  presentation 
of  any  linguistic  evidence  (it  may  be  he  does  so  in  the  second  edition, 
1875,  3  vols.,  4to,  of  his  Cuadro,  which  the  author  has  not  exam¬ 
ined)  ;  nor  does  Brinton  or  any  other  author  at  hand  except  Nicolas 
Leon  and  Seler.  In  his  introduction  to  the  reprint  of  Cordova’s 
“Arte  del  Idioma  Zapoteco”  (p.  lx  et  seq.),  Leon,  copying  his  data 
chiefly  from  Pimentel,  presents  some  arguments  in  favor  of  relation¬ 
ship.  What  value  is  to  be  attached  to  his  argument  from  the  gram¬ 
matical  standpoint  the  author  can  not  say,  but  that  of  his  brief 
word  comparison  is  very  small.  First,  it  is  brief,  yet  apparently  as 
full  as  the  data  afforded;  second,  the  words  are  culled  to  suit  (observe 
Brinton’s  standard  word  comparison,  3:339);  and  after  all  this 
care  the  similarity  in  several  instances  is  not  apparent,  and  the  com¬ 
parison  forced.  For  example  (p.  lxvi) :  Tres  and  oclio,  the  former 
ch-ona,  the  latter  xo-ono  in  Zapotec,  to  compare  with  uni  and  una 
in  Mixtec. 

Now  “three”  in  Zapotec  (same  work,  176)  is  chona  or  cayo,  accord¬ 
ing  to  relation,  custom,  etc.;  and  “eight,”  xoono  or  xono  (see  p.  177); 
ch  and  xo  are  never  prefixes,  so  far  as  the  author  can  find.  In 
Charencey’s  comparison  of  Zapotec  and  Mixtec  numerals  ( Melanges , 
p.  44o) ,  which  takes  in  the  numbers  from  1  to  20  and  includes,  by  tens, 
30  to  100,  there  is  scarcely  the  slightest  resemblance,  except  in  the  plan 
or  s}7stem  of  the  formation  of  numbers,  which  is  the  same  in  half  a 
dozen  stocks  in  that  part  of  North  America.  (See  also  list  below.) 
It  is  probable  that  “one”  in  Mixtec  should  be  ce  instead  of  ec,  as 
“eleven”  is  usice  (10  and  1). 

Seler  (550  et  seq.)  gives  a  short  grammatical  comparison. 

Attention  is  called  to  what  appears  to  be  some  wide  differences. 

According  to  Pimentel  (i,  41)  the  Mixtec  letters  (Spanish  pro¬ 
nunciation,  of  course)  are: 

a  chdehijlcmnnostuvxo 

hs  gs  y  z  dz  nd  tn  Tch 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  57 

The  Zapotec  letters  (Pimentel,  I,  321)  are: 

abcheghiklmnnoprtux 

y  z  th 

According  to  Cordova  (73)  c  (hard)  is  sometimes  used  for  g;  also  d 
for  t,  and  s  for  x. 

From  this  it  may  be  seen  that  the  following  are  found  in  the 
former  and  wanting  in  the  latter: 

d  j  s  v  ks  gs  dz  nd  tn  kh 

though  d  and  s  are  sometimes  used  for  t  and  x. 

In  the  latter  the  following  are  found  which  are  wanting  in  the 
former : 

b  g  l  p  r  tli 

These  are  wide  variations  for  cognate  languages. 

Next  is  given  a  list  of  words  for  comparison.  The  author  would 
take  a  selected  list,  such  as  is  commonly  used  in  obtaining  vocabu¬ 
laries,  but  he  has  only  meager  lists  of  Mixtec  words. 

LIST 


MTXTEC  ZAPOTEC 


brother 

iiani 

beechebiobi 

sister 

kuhua 

beelda 

father 

dzutu,  yua 

bixoce,  bixooze 

mother 

dzehe,  xi  dihi 

xinaagaxana 

man 

yee 

beni,  benni,  beniati 

woman 

nahadzehe 

benigonnaa,  benegonaa 

day 

yutnaa  (manana) 

chii,  gobiicha,  chee 

bread  (pan) 

dzita 

gueta 

teeth 

noho 

laya,  chitalay,  layachita.  (Sing 

♦ 

nose 

dzitu 

xii 

ears 

tutnu,  dzoho 

tiaga 

forehead 

tnaa 

loocaa,  loocuaa  (of  man  or  beast) 

tree 

yutme 

yaga 

hen 

tehoo 

berehualache,  berezaa  (bere?) 

white 

kuisi 

nagati,  naquichi,  yati 

I 

duhu,  ndi 

naya,  a,  a 

thou 

doho,  ndo 

lohui,  loy,  looy,  lo 

we 

ndoo 

taono,  tono,  tona,  no 

you  (pi.) 

doho 

lato,  to 

for 

saha 

niiani,  niiateni 

on 

dodzo,  kodza 

loo,  chiiba,  icqui 

between 

naho 

late,  lahui 

with 

sihi 

nii,  xii 

nephew 

dzasi,  daxi 

xinibeecha  (m),  xinibezaana  (f) 

head 

dzini 

icqui 

eye 

tenu 

bizaalos,  loo 

mouth 

yuhu 

rua,  rohua 

tongue 

yaa 

loochi,  looche,  luuchi 

hand 

daha 

naa 

house 

huahi 

yuu,  yoho 

foot 

saja 

niia  (pi.) 

8347°— Bull.  44—11 - 5 


58 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


MIXTEC 

ZAPOTEC 

1 

ec  (ce?) 

tobi,  chaga 

2 

wui,  uvui 

topa,  cato 

3 

uni 

chona,  cayo 

4 

kmi,.  qmi 

tapa,  taa 

5 

hoho 

caayo 

6 

ino 

xopa 

7 

ucha 

caache 

8 

una 

xoono 

9 

ee 

caa,  gaa 

10 

usi 

chii 

11 

usice 

chiibitobi 

12 

usiwui 

chiibitopa,  chiibicato 

13 

usiuni 

chiino,  chiibichona 

20 

oco 

calle 

30 

oconsi 

callebichii 

40 

wuidzico 

toua 

60 

unidzico 

cayona 

100 

hohodzico 

cayoa 

We  have  al 

so  the  comparison 

as  judged  by  the  ear. 

speaking  of  Mixtec,  says: 

Deprendio  muy  en  breve  la  lengua  de  aquella  nacion,  que  es  dificultosa  de  saberse, 
por  la  gran  equivocacion  de  los  bocablos,  para  cuya  distincion  es  necessario  usar  de 
ordinario  del  sonido  de  la  nariz  y  aspiracion  del  alieto. 


Burgoa  (Palestra,  pt.  1.  fol.  211,  fide  Bancroft,  iii,  749)  calls  it 
“la  lengua  dificultosissima  en  la  pronunciacion,  con  notable  variedad 
de  terminos  y  vozes  en  unos  y  otros  Pueblos/7 

This  statement  of  its  being  difficult  and  harsh  appears  to  be  gen¬ 
erally  accepted.  (See  also  Starks  statement,  p.  37.) 

On  the  other  hand,  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  (Esquisses,  35,  fide  Ban¬ 
croft,  hi,  754)  says,  “La  langue  Zapoteque  est  d’une  douceur  et 
d7une  sonorite  qui  rappelle  lTtalien.77  Burgoa  speaks  of  it  in  much 
the  same  way  (Bancroft,  ibid).  In  the  “advertencia77  to  the  anony¬ 
mous  Vocabulario  Castellano-Zapoteco  is  the  following  statement: 
“Por  la  ortografia,  y  por  muchas  palabras  y  frases,  personas  inteligentes 
juzgan  que  presenta  un  lenguaje  bastante  alterado  ya.77 

These  facts  appear  to  call  for  a  careful  re-examination  of  the  subject 
by  philologists. 

Chontal 


(Synonym:  Tequistlateca) 

The  tribe  here  alluded  to  under  the  name  Chontal  includes  the 
Indians  forming  a  small  group  residing  in  the  southern  portion  of  the 
Zapotec  territory  on  the  Pacific  coast.  The  area  occupied  by  them 
is  chiefly  in  the  district  of  Tehuantepec,  Oaxaca,  extending  to 
Guerrero. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  59 

Much  confusion  exists  in  regard  to  this  name,  as  it  is  applied  not 
only  to  the  small  group  in  Oaxaca  but  also  to  one  in  Tabasco  and  to 
another  in  Nicaragua,  both  of  which  are  included  by  Orozco  y  Berra  in 
the  Mayan  family.  It  is  now  known,  however,  that  only  those  in 
Tabasco  and  some  in  Guatemala  and  Honduras  to  which  the  name 
has  sometimes  been  applied  belong  to  this  family.  The  languages  of 
the  Oaxacan  and  Nicaraguan  groups  pertain  to  entirely  different 
stocks.  That  of  the  former  having  received  no  satisfactory  classifi¬ 
cation,  Doctor  Brinton  (3:  112,  146)  has  applied  to  it  the  nameTequis- 
tlateca,  from  the  principal  village  of  the  tribe,  and  placed  it  in  the 
Yuman  stock.  As  yet,  however,  this  has  not  been  accepted  by 
linguists. 

Professor  Starr  (67)  insists  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  the 
change  of  name  made  by  Doctor  Brinton,  as  the  people  call  them¬ 
selves  Chontal  and  their  language  Cliontal.  He  says  also  that 
Orozco  y  Berra  is  in  error  in  calling  some  of  the  most  important 
towns  Trike  pueblos;  and  that  one  in  the  list  of  Chontal  towns  he 
gives — Tlacolulita — is  in  reality  Zapotec.  Leon  and  Belmar  have 
assigned  the  language  to  the  Nahuatlan  stock. 

As  the  name  Chontal  applied  to  other  groups  should  be  superseded 
by  more  correct  titles,  there  appears  to  be  no  good  reason  why  it 
could  not  be  retained  for  the  Oaxacan  tribe,  as  this  is  the  name  the 
people  apply  to  themselves,  but  for  the  present  it  is  deemed  best, 
following  Brinton,  to  apply  to  it  as  a  linguistic  family  the  name 
Tequistlatecan. 

Huave 

( Synonyms :  Huabi,  Juave,  Guavi,  Wabi) 

A  small  tribe  resident  on  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec,  among  the 
marshes  on  the  Pacific  coast,  at  the  point  where  the  Zapotec  and 
Zoque  territories  meet,  as  located  on  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map.  They 
occupy  at  present  only  four  villages,  one  of  those  mentioned  by 
Orozco  y  Berra — Ixhuatan — long  since  having  been  abandoned. 
According  to  their  traditions  they  came  from  some  coast  region  far¬ 
ther  to  the  south — the  last-named  writer  says  from  South  America. 
Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  (1  :iii,  3)  says,  on  what  authority  is  not  stated, 
that  in  past  centuries  they  possessed  the  province  of  Tehuantepec, 
and  that  they  had  been  masters  also  of  Soconusco,  and  had  extended 
their  conquest  to  Xalapa-la-Grande,  of  the  Zapotec. 

So  far  as  known,  the  language  can  not  be  assigned  to  any  recognized 
stock,  although  Leon  and  Belmar  believe  it  to  be  related  to  the  Maya ; 
.  therefore  for  the  present  it  must  remain  as  the  representative  of  a 
distinct  family. 


60 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Mixe 

{Synonym:  Mize) 

According  to  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:176)  the  territory  of  the  Mixe 
embraced  parts  of  the  districts  of  Tlacolula,  Villa- Alta,  and  Tehuan¬ 
tepec,  in  Oaxaca,  bordering  on  the  east  with  that  of  the  Chiapanec. 
Professor  Starr  (53)  locates  them  at  present  in  the  districts  of  Yaute- 
pec,  Villa- Alta,  and  Tehuantepec.  Garay  says  (60) : 

The  Mixes  constituted  formerly  a  powerful  nation,  and  they  still  occupy  the  land 
from  the  Sierra,  north  of  Tehuantepec,  to  the  district  of  Chiapas.  In  the  Isthmus 
they  inhabit  only  the  village  of  Guichicovi,  and  a  small  portion  of  the  Sierra,  which 
is  never  visited. 

Seemingly  forgetful  of  his  statement  in  regard  to  the  ancient  terri¬ 
tory  of  the  Huaves,  or  alluding  to  a  different  era,  Brasseur  de  Bour- 
bourg  (1 :  hi,  34-35)  says  the  Mixes  possessed  anciently  the  greater 
part  of  Tehuantepec,  Soconusco,  and  the  Zapotecan  area,  giving 
Burgoa  as  his  authority.  The  Popoloco  of  Puebla  are  a  branch. 

The  language  of  the  Mixe  is  now  fully  recognized  as  related  to 
the  Zoque,  and  the  two  form  the  chief  idioms,  of  the  Zoquean 
family. 

Zoque 

Orozco  y  Berra  (1:170)  describes  the  territory  of  the  Zoque  as 
embracing  parts  of  Chiapas,  Tabasco,  and  Oaxaca,  joining  on  the 
north  the  Mexican  and  Chontal  areas,  on  the  east  the  Tzental,  Zotzil, 
and  Chiapanec,  on  the  south  the  Mexican,  and  on  the  west  the 
Zapotec  and  Mixe  areas.  Williams  (225)  says: 

The  Zoques  inhabit  the  mountainous  region  to  the  east,  from  the  valley  of  the  ■ 
Chicapa  on  the  south,  to  the  Pvio  del  Corte  on  the  north.  Originally  occupying  a  small 
province  lying  on  the  confines  of  Tobasco,  they  were  subjugated  by  the  expedition 
to  Chiapas  under  Luis  Marin. 

The  language,  now  well  known,  is  taken  as  the  typical  idiom  of  the 
Zoquean  family. 

Doctor  Brinton  (3: 144)  includes  in  his  classification  of  this  family 
two  subtribes,  the  Chimalapas,  “a  subtribe  of  the  Zoques ”  (no 
locality  given),  and  the  Tapijulapanes  “on  Bio  de  la  Sierra,”  evi¬ 
dently  the  Tapachulteca  (or  Tapachula  as  on  the  map).  The  author 
has  not  succeeded  in  finding  the  authority  on  which  the  first  is  based, 
or  whether  it  is  to  be  taken  as  indicating  a  different  dialect.  How¬ 
ever,  this  is  repeated  by  Grasserie  (6) .  The  second  may  be  based  on 
the  quotation  in  Pimentel  (ii,  236-243).  But  whether  the  language 
here  referred  to  is  to  be  considered  different  from  Zoque  is  not  clear, 
unless  this  inference  be  deduced  from  the  few  words  and  expressions 
given,  which  appear  hardly  to  justify  it.  The  relationship  of  Ta¬ 
pachulteca  to  Zoquean  is,  however,  confirmed  by  Sapper. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  61 

CENTRAL  AMERICA 

As  here  defined,  Central  America  includes  not  the  group  of  repub¬ 
lics  to  which  the  name  is  usually  applied,  but  the  geographical  and 
ethnic  Central  America,  lying  between  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec 
and  the  South  American  continent. 

Ciiiapanec 

Chiapanec  was  spoken  in  the  interior  of  the  state  of  Chiapas. 
Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  (2:  clyii,  cxcix)  places  the  tribe  between  the 
Zotziles  or  Quelenes  on  the  south  [east]  and  the  Zoques  on  the  north 
[west];  Orozco  y  Berra  (1: 172)  says,  in  Acala  district  “del  Centro,” 
and  in  the  village  of  Chiapa,  and  in  Suchiapa,  district  of  the  west. 
Pinart  (in  preface  to  Albornoz  and  Barrientos,  5)  says,  probably  fol¬ 
lowing  Orozco  y  Berra,  that  this  language  was  spoken  in  the  village 
of  Chiapa,  at  Acala,  Suchiapa,  and  some  other  villages  of  the  same 
locality,  in  the  department  of  Chiapas. 

The  language,  although  as  yet  not  thoroughly  studied,  is  sufficiently 
known  to  make  it  the  type  of  the  small  stock  bearing  the  name 
Cliiapanecan,  which  is  represented  at  some  two  or  three  points  far¬ 
ther  south. 

Ciiontal  1  (of  Tabasco) 

As  stated  above,  there  has  been  much  confusion  in  the  use  of  the 
name  Chontal,  which  has  been  applied  to  tribes  in  Oaxaca,  Tabasco, 
Guatemala,  and  Nicaragua,  belonging  to  three  or  four  different  lin¬ 
guistic  stocks.  Those  here  referred  to  are,  or  were,  resident  in  what  is 
now  the  state  of  Tabasco.  Herrera  says  (n,dec.3, 211)  that  in  Tabasco 
three  languages  were  spoken:  Chontal,  used  by  the  greater  part  of  the 
inhabitants;  Zoque,  spoken  in  the  sierras;  and  Mexican,  which  was 
brought  into  this  region  by  the  garrisons  of  the  two  forts  Monte¬ 
zuma  had  established  in  it,  namely,  Zimatlan  and  Xicalango.  That 
Orozco  y  Berra  has  mistaken  the  application  of  the  name  is  evident, 
yet  it  does  not  follow  that  his  map  is  incorrect  as  to  the  areas  marked 
thereon. 

Doctor  Brinton  (3:  149)  informs  us  that  it  is  seen  from  a  manu¬ 
script  vocabulary  of  the  language  by  Doctor  Berendt,  that  the  Chontal 
of  Tabasco  belongs  to  the  Mayan  family  and  is  practically  identical 
with  the  Tzental  dialect.  Doctor  Berendt  (2: 137)  confirms  this  and 
states  that  it  shows  only  a  dialectic  variation  from  Tzental  and 
Zotzil.  This  corresponds  with  Stoll’s  classification,  whose  vocabulary 
shows  that  it  belongs  to  the  same  group  as  the  Tzental  and  Choi. 
Although  Carl  Sapper  (2:359  and  Carte  vm  et  al.)  recognizes 


1  This  dialect  and  those  which  follow  as  far  as  Maya,  inclusive,  except  Tapachulteca,  belong  to  the 
Mayan  linguistic  family. 


62 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


the  Chontal  through  Stoll,  he  includes  the  area  in  the  Choi  type  in 
his  maps  showing  the  distribution  of  the  types  of  ruins.  On  the  other 
hand,  Juarros  (i,  14)  places  Palenque  in  the  province  of  the  Tzentals. 

With  this  evidence  only,  it  is  difficult  to  decide  as  to  either  name  or 
area,  and  the  author  has  concluded,  therefore,  that  it  is  best  to  follow 
Orozco  y  Berra’s  mapping,  which  appears  to  be  at  least  substantially 
correct,  retaining  the  name  Chontal  temporarily,  with  the  addition  of 
the  words  “of  Tabasco.”  Sapper’s  archeological  types  are  too 
uncertain  to  be  used  as  a  guide  in  this  respect. 

Tzotzil 

C Synonym :  Zotzil) 

As  this  is  one  of  the  well-known  languages  of  the  Mayan  family,  it 
is  necessary  only  to  indicate  the  locality  in  which  it  was  spoken,  and 
the  possible  synonyms. 

The  only  question  in  the  latter  respect  which  arises  is,  whether  the 
Quelene  are  to  be  considered  the  same  as  the  Tzotzil,  or  whether  they 
were  two  groups  speaking  the  same  or  different  dialects.  That  the 
name  Quelene  for  some  time  has  dropped  out  of  use  is  evident. 
Herrera  (n,  dec.  4,  220)  says  that  the  province  of  Chiapas  was  divided 
among  four  nations,  with  different  languages — the  Chiapaneca,Zoque, 
Zeltale  (Tzental),  and  the  Quelenes,  omitting  any  mention  of  the 
Tzotzil,  who  certainly  resided  in  Chiapas.  The  inference  from  this 
fact  is  that  by  Quelene  we  are  to  understand  Tzotzil.  On  the  other 
hand,  Juarros  (1  :n,  32)  mentions  in  his  list  of  Mayan  and  neighbor¬ 
ing  dialects  the  Tzotzil  and  the  Tzental,  but  omits  the  Quelene. 
Orozco  y  Berra  (1:168)  thinks  that  from  the  Quelene  “result”  the 
Tzotzil  and  the  Tzental.  Doctor  Brinton  (3:86)  omits  the  Quelene 
from  consideration;  but  Stoll  (2:86)  says  he  finds  the  Tzotzil 
alluded  to  by  the  Spanish  historians  under  the  name  “Quelenes.” 
The  latter  conclusion  appears  to  be  the  correct  one. 

In  marking  the  territory  of  this  tribe  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map  has  been 
followed  in  the  main,  which,  according  to  his  usual  custom,  is  based  on 
the  pueblos  in  which  the  language  was  spoken.  In  addition  to  the 
work  of  Remesal  and  other  published  works,  Orozco  y  Berra  made 
use  of  a  manuscript  furnished  him  by  the  Bishop  of  Chiapas. 

Tzental 

The  territory  of  the  Tzental  is  given  by  most  authorities  as 
included  in  the  present  state  of  Chiapas.  Gage  (236)  says — 

The  province  called  Zeldales  [Tzentals]  lyeth  behind  this  of  the  Zoques,  from  the 
North  Sea  within  the  continent,  running  up  towards  Chiapa  and  reaches  in  some 
parts  near  to  the  borders  of  Comatitlan,  northwest. 


Thomas]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  63 

Orozco  y  Berra  (1 : 169)  says  the  language  is  peculiar  to  Chiapas,  and 
this  conclusion  is  followed  by  most  recent  authorities.  As  we  have 
seen,  Juarros  includes  Palenque  in  the  area  in  which  this  language  was 
spoken.  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  (1 :  i,  63-64)  hesitates  between  Tzental 
and  Maya  (proper),  but  the  inscriptions  agree  better  with  the  former 
than  with  the  latter.  According  to  the  statement  of  Stoll  (2:84), 
Doctor  Berendt  affirms  that  later  the  language  spoken  there  was 
Choi,  and  this  corresponds  with  Orozco  y  Berra’s  map  and  with 
Sapper’s  conclusion  (2).  It  is  therefore  an  undecided  question  how 
far  northward  the  Tzental  territory  extended  at  the  date  of  discovery. 
If  Sapper’s  districting  of  the  ruin -types  (2:  map  vm)  could  be 
accepted  as  a  correct  mapping  of  ethnic  divisions,  the  Choi  formerly 
extended  over  the  Cliontal  area,  the  Palenque  region,  and  the  section 
occupied  by  the  western  Lacandon.  This  evidence  is  not  of  a  char¬ 
acter  to  be  satisfactory  in  deciding  this  question,  however,  especially 
as  Brinton,  and  apparently  Berendt  also,  consider  them  relatively  late 
comers  to  this  region.  The  writer  has  been  unable  to  find  data 
on  which  to  base  a  conclusion  regarding  this  question,  but  is 
inclined  to  agree  with  Sapper  in  considering  the  ruins  of  the  middle 
and  lower  Usumacinta  valley  as  more  nearly  allied  to  those  of  Copan 
and  Quirigua  than  to  those  of  the  intermediate  Peten  region.  In  this 
comparison,  which  must  be  close,  details  as  well  as  general  forms 
must  be  appealed  to.  These  bring  the  ruins  of  Quirigua  (which  are 
ascribed  by  him  to  the  Choi)  and  those  of  Copan  (which  he  ascribes 
to  the  Cliorti  tribe)  nearer  to  those  of  Palenque,  Piedras  Negras 
(see  Mahler),  and  Menche  in  the  Usumacinta  valley  than  to  those  of 
the  Peten  region.  This  question  will  be  further  discussed,  however, 
under  Choi.  The  writer  has  followed  Orozco  y  Berra  chiefly,  though 
not  exactly,  in  outlining  the  area  of  the  Tzental  language. 

Chol 

The  authorities  differ  widely  as  to  the  area  over  which  this  idiom 
was  spoken.  Orozco  y  Berra  (1:167)  says  the  Choi  constituted  a 
tribe  established  from  remote  times  in  Guatemala,  which  was  divided 
into  two  factions  by  the  incursions  of  the  Maya.  One  of  these  divi¬ 
sions,  he  says,  is  encountered  in  eastern  Chiapas,  and  the  other,  very 
isolated,  in  Vera  Paz.  He  maps  only  the  western  division,  as  the 
other  division  lay  beyond  the  Mexican  boundary.  Sapper,  in  his 
map  v,  which  relates  to  present  conditions,  limits  them  to  a  small 
area  in  northern  Chiapas,  but  in  his  map  vm,  showing  the  areas  of 
the  ruin- types,  the  Choi  type  is  in  two  sections,  of  which  the  western 
covers  eastern  Tabasco  and  northeastern  Chiapas  extending  into 
northwestern  Guatemala;  the  eastern  division  includes  the  extreme 
northeastern  corner  of  Guatemala  and  a  strip  of  Honduras  along  its 


64 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


northwestern  border.  Stoll,  in  his  map,  gives  an  area  extending 
across  the  north-central  portion  of  Guatemala,  spreading  out  to  a 
considerable  extent  around  the  Gulf  of  Dulce.  The  fact  that  a  por¬ 
tion  of  the  tribe  still  resides  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Gulf  of  Dulce  is 
confirmed  by  Maudslay.  As  Stoll’s  map  relates  to  an  earlier  date 
than  either  of  the  others,  and  is  based  chiefly  on  the  data  furnished 
by  Juarros,  who  names  the  pueblos  where  it  was  spoken,  it  probably 
gives  more  correctly  the  area  formerly  occupied  by  the  tribe.  As  this 
author  (Stoll)  limits  his  map  to  Guatemala,  the  area  in  Chiapas  is  not 
given;  however,  it  is  referred  to  in  his  text  (2:90)  as  including  the 
pueblos  Santo  Domingo  delPalenque,  San  Pedro  Sabana,  Salto  de  Agua, 
Tumbala  and  Tila  in  Chiapas.  He  adds  that  a  few  Choi  families  are 
found  in  Tenosique  in  Tabasco.  lie  states  also  that  they  claim  their 
territory  formerly  extended  from  the  borders  of  Chiapas  to  the 
Gulf  of  Dulce.  Charencey  (96)  says  the  Choi  commence  about  23 
leagues  east  of  Caliabon.  How  this  is  to  be  understood  is  not  very 
clear.  The  area  as  given  on  the  present  map  is  a  modification  of 
Stoll’s  map,  so  as  to  form  a  compromise  with  the  other  authorities. 
Pimentel  and  Orozco  y  Berra  give  Mopan  as  a  synonym  of  Choi, 
though  by  others  it  is  considered  a  subdialect  of  Maya  proper. 

Ciianabal 

(Synonym:  Tojolabal) 

The  small  tribe  speaking  this  idiom  is  located  by  Orozco  y  Berra 
along  the  southeastern  border  of  Chiapas  where  it  joins  the  Guate¬ 
malan  territory;  Sapper’s  map  v  shows  two  small  areas,  one  within 
the  bounds  given  by  Orozco  y  Berra  between  the  areas  assigned  the 
Jacalteca  and  the  Chicomucelteca,  and  the  other  about  the  pueblo 
of  Comitan  and  wholly  embraced  in  the  Tzental  territory:  this  map, 
however,  relates  to  present  conditions.  Orozco  y  Berra  seems  to 
have  included  portions  of  the  Cliicomuceltecan  population,  as  one 
of  the  pueblos  he  names  (1:167)  is  Chicomucelo.  Charencey  (95) 
limits  the  tribe  chiefly  to  the  parish  of  Comitan. 

The  Chanabal  (Berendt  writes  Chaneabal)  is  placed  by  Stoll  in  his 
Tzental  group,  a  classification  which  is  now  generally  accepted. 
The  area,  as  mapped  in  the  present  work,  is  a  compromise  between 
that  of  Sapper  and  Orozco  y  Berra,  as  the  former  is  based  on  the 
present  reduced  state  of  the  tribe,  while  the  latter  includes  areas 
belonging  to  other  tribes.  In  a  subsequent  work  (1:132)  Stoll 
includes  the  Jacaltenango  pueblo  in  the  Chuje  (or  Cliuhe)  territory, 
and  corrects  the  mistake  into  which  he  had  been  led  by  Juarros  in 
naming  the  language  of  this  section  Pokomam. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  65 


Chicomucelteca 

This  is  the  idiom  spoken  by  a  small  tribe  first  brought  to  notice 
by  Sapper,  who  considered  it  a  dialect  of  Huasteca.  He  locates  the 
tribe  in  southeastern  Chiapas,  adjoining  the  southern  Chanabal  area 
on  the  west,  including  the  pueblos  Chicomucelo  and  Montenegro. 
His  mapping  has  been  followed. 

Motozintleca 

This  is  also  an  idiom  first  mentioned,  so  far  as  the  writer’s  data 
show,  by  Sapper.  The  locality  indicated  on  his  map  v  is  a  small  area 
about  Motozintla  in  the  southeastern  corner  of  Chiapas,  in  the  western 
border  of  the  Mam  territory  as  given  by  him.  Judging  by  the  brief 
vocabulary  it  seems  to  be  closely  related  to  the  Jacalteca.  By  mis¬ 
take  the  Naliuatlan  red  on  the  linguistic  map  has  been  carried  over 
the  territory  occupied  by  them. 

Tapachulteca 

Sapper  mentions  (2  :244)  and  marks  on  his  map  v  an  idiom  under 
this  name  which  he  makes  a  dialect  of  the  Mixe,  now  well  nigh  extinct. 
The  small  area  marked  on  his  map  is  in  the  extreme  southeastern 
corner  of  Chiapas  and  in  the  southern  border  of  the  Mam  territory, 
embracing  the  pueblo  of  Tapachula.  Charencey  (91),  Orozco  y 
Berra  (on  map),  and  Stoll  (1 : 134)  state  that  the  language  spoken  at 
Tapachula  was  Mam,  but  as  the  original  tongue  is  dying  out,  both 
languages  are  probably  spoken  there.  (See  Zoque,  p.  60.) 

SUBINIIA 

Nothing  further  has  been  found  in  regard  to  this  idiom  than  the 
brief  vocabulary  given  in  the  Lenguas  Indlgenas  de  Centro-America 
en  el  Siglo  XVIII.  According  to  the  brief  statement  at  the  end  it  was 
copied  from  the  original  “existente  en  este  Archivo  de  Indias,  bajo  la 
rotulacion  de  ‘Audiencia  de  Guatemala. — Duplicados  de  Gobernadores 
Presidentes. — 1788-1790.’  ” 1 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  locate  on  the  map  the  region  in  which 
this  idiom  was  used. 

Jacalteca 

The  writer  has  grave  doubts  as  to  the  propriety  of  retaining 
Jacalteca  and  Chuje  as  names  of  different  dialects.  The  vocabulary 
of  the  Chuje,  which  appears  to  have  been  obtained  only  by  Rockstroh, 


1  It  seems  to  have  been  obtained  or  transmitted  with  some  explanations  by  Josef  Anselmo  Ortiz,  who  dates 
his  communication  Zocaltenango.  As  Zocaltenango  is  evidently  the  same  as  Jacaltenango,  where  the  Jacal¬ 
teca  idiom  (a  close  relation  of  the  Chuje)  was  spoken,  the  vocabulary,  which  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
well  recorded,  may  pertain  to  one  of  the  several  dialects  of  this  region. 


66 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


is  very  brief  and,  if  the  writer  may  judge,  not  very  carefully  taken, 
notwithstanding  that  Stoll  has  followed  it.  Chuje  and  Jacalteca  (of 
which  we  have  a  fuller  vocabulary)  are  certainly  very  closely  allied. 
The  latter  was  spoken  throughout  a  small  area  around  the  pueblo 
of  Jacaltenango  near  the  northwestern  boundary  of  Guatemala. 
This  territory  is  included  in  the  area  marked  xv  (?)  on  Stoll’s  map. 
Misled  by  Juarres,  Stoll  has  marked  the  red  area  around  Jacaltenango 
as  Pokomam  territory,  an  error  he  subsequently  corrected.  (See 
Polcomam.)  It  is  located  on  the  present  map,  pending  the  discovery 
of  further  evidence  as  to  relationship  with  the  Chuje. 

Chuje 

{Synonym:  Chuhe) 

This  idiom,  at  present  classed  as  a  dialect  of  Choi,  is  most  closely 
related  to,  if  not  identical  with,  Jacalteca;  it  is  spoken  now,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Stoll  (1 : 135),  from  Nenton  to  San  Sebastian  on  the  east. 
The  area  as  marked  by  Sapper  is  in  Guatemala  near  the  western 
border,  adjoining  the  Jacaltecan  territory  on  the  north,  but  does 
not  include  Nenton  (or  Neuton,  as  he  writes  it),  leaving  it  a  little  to 
the  west  of  the  boundary  lie  gives.  His  mapping  is  here  followed, 
except  that  the  boundary  is  carried  westward  to  include  Nenton. 

Ac  ms 

It  is  said  that  this  dialect  (now  extinct)  was  formerly  spoken  in  Gua¬ 
temala— Brin  ton  (3  :  158)  says  in  eastern  Guatemala.  As  yet  the  writer 
has  found  no  data  on  which  this  conclusion  could  be  based  except  a 
mere  mention  by  Palacio  (20).  As  he  names  this  tribe  in  connection 
with  the  Mam,  their  location  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  republic  would 
seem  to  be  incorrect.  Is  it  not  possible  they  were  the  Aguacateca 
or  the  Jacalteca,  tribes  bordering  the  Mam  territory?  Of  course  this 
name  has  not  been  placed  on  the  map. 

Mam 

{Synonym:  Zaklohpakap) 

As  this  language,  which  is  considered  one.  of  the  most  archaic  of 
the  Mayan  stock  (Huasteca  alone  standing  before  it  in  this  respect) , 
has  been  rather  carefully  studied,  it  is  necessary  to  call  attention 
only  to  the  habitat  of  the  tribe.  This  was  the  western  portion  of 
Guatemala,  extending  westward  for  a  short  distance  into  Soconusco 
and  southward  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  As  Stoll’s  map  is  restricted  to 
Guatemala,  it  does  not  show  the  extension  into  Soconusco.  Orozco  y 
Berra  marks  a  small  area  “Marne”  in  the  extreme  southeastern  corner 
of  Soconusco,  but  Sapper  gives  a  larger  extension;  the  latter  has  been 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OP  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  67 

followed  in  this  respect  in  the  map  accompanying  this  paper,  though 
Stoll  has  been  the  writer’s  guide  as  to  the  portion  in  Guatemala. 

Ixil 

This  dialect  is  placed  by  Stoll  in  his  Mam  division  of  the  Mayan  stock. 
As  the  language  is  now  well  enough  understood  to  classify  it  properly, 
it  is  necessary  that  we  note  here  only  the  habitat.  Stoll,  the  author¬ 
ity  followed  in  this  case,  locates  the  area  occupied  by  the  tribe  slightly 
west  of  the  center  of  Guatemala,  including  the  pueblos  of  Nebaj, 
Cotzal,  and  Chajul  as  the  chief  centers  of  population.  As  given  by 
him,  the  Rio  Negro  or  Chixoy  formed  the  eastern  boundary  of  the 
tribal  territory  at  the  tine  to  which  his  map  relates.  The  reduced 
area  given  by  Sapper  is  included  in  that  given  by  Stoll.  According 
to  the  latter,  it  lay  between  the  Mam  area  on  the  west  and  that  of  the 
Kekchi  on  the  east,  joining  the  Kiche  territory  on  the  south. 

Aguacateca 

This  idiom  also  is  placed  by  Stoll  and  philologists  generally  in  the 
Mam  division.  The  small  area  occupied  by  the  tribe  included  Agua¬ 
cateca  and  the  present  Huehuetenango,  joining  the  Mam  area  on  the 
north  and  west,  and  the  Kiche  territory  on  the  east  and  south.  The 
reduced  area  given  by  Sapper  falls  within  the  bounds  indicated 
by  Stoll.  Although  the  dialect  agrees  most  nearly  with  Mam, 
the  strong  influence  of  the  neighboring  Kiche  and  Ixil  dialects  is 
apparent  in  the  vocabulary. 

Kiche 

{Synonym:  Quiche) 

The  Kiche  (or  Quiche)  dialect  is  second  in  importance  and  terri¬ 
torial  extent  only  to  the  Maya  (proper)  of  the  languages  of  the 
Mayan  stock;  however,  it  is  now  so  well  known  that  comments  are 
unnecessary  here.  Stoll  makes  it  the  basis  of  his  Kiche  division 
of  the  stock.  The  area  occupied  by  the  tribe  was  and  still  is  quite 
extensive,  including  considerable  territory  in  central  Guatemala 
about  the  headwaters  of  Rio  Motagua,  and  extending  thence  around 
the  western  side  of  Lake  Atitlan  southward  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  this 
southern  extension  being  in  contact  with  the  Mam  territory  on  the 
west  and  the  Cakchikel  territory  on  the  east.  Included  are  the  fol- 
lowing  among  the  more  important  towns  or  pueblos:  Santa  Cruz 
Quiche,  Rabinal,  Totonicapan,  Quetzaltenango,  and  Mazatenango. 
The  somewhat  diminished  area  designated  by  Sapper  is  included  in 
the  bounds  given  by  Stoll. 

Cakchikel 

This  is  one  of  the  dialects  embraced  by  Stoll  in  his  Kiche  division : 
it  is,  in  fact,  but  a  subdialect  of  the  Kiche.  The  tribe  lives  in  the 


68 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


central  part  of  southern  Guatemala.  Their  territory  formerly  in¬ 
cluded  the  area  between  Lake  Atitlan  and  the  vicinity  of  the  present 
city  of  Guatemala,  and  extended  southward  to  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
embracing  the  noted  ruins  of  Santa  Lucia  and  Iximchi.  This  area 
connects  on  the  north  and  west  with  that  of  the  Kiche,  and  on  the 
east  with  the  Pokomam  and  the  Pipil  territory.  Among  the  impor¬ 
tant  towns  included  are  Solola,  Tecpam,  Chumaltenango,  and  An¬ 
tigua.  The  diminished  area  on  Sapper7 s  map  is  included  in  that  given 
by  Stoll,  except  at  the  northeast,  where  Sapper  extends  it  northward 
to  the  Rio  Grande  (Motagua) .  This  discrepancy  is  due  chiefly  to  the 
difference  in  the  maps  with  respect  to  the  location  of  the  river. 

Pupuluca  (a). — The  vocabulary  on  which  this  supposed  dialect  is 
based  was  taken  by  Dr.  Karl  Scherzer  (28-37)  at  St.  Mary  near 
Antigua,  which  is  included  in  the  Cakcliikel  territory.  Doctor  Brin- 
ton’s  assertion  (3  : 153)  that  “it  is  nothing  more  than  the  ordinary 
Cakchiquel  dialect  of  that  locality77  seems  to  be  justified  by  a  com¬ 
parison  of  the  vocabularies,  the  difference  arising  chiefly  from 
Scherzer7 s  method  of  spelling  and  the  insertion  of  prefixes.  Scherzer 
names  it  “Pupuluca  Cakcliikel.77  It  is  not  entitled  to  a  place  as  a 
dialect. 

Tzutuhil 

{Synonym:  Zutuhil) 

This  is  a  dialect  of  the  Kiche  division  spoken  over  a  small  area 
around  the  southern  shore  of  Lake  Atitlan,  with  the  ancient  Atitlan 
as  its  chief  pueblo.  The  territory  of  the  tribe  is  wedged  in  between 
the  Kiche  and  Cakcliikel  areas.  The  bounds  given  by  Stoll  and  Sap¬ 
per  are  substantially  the  same  and  are  followed  on  the  accompany¬ 
ing  map. 

UsPANTECA 

The  dialect  of  a  small  tribe  situated  near  the  center  of  Guatemala, 
precisely  at  the  meeting  point  of  the  Kiche,  Ixil,  and  Pokonchi  ter¬ 
ritories,  and,  according  to  Stoll’s  map,  in  the  great  bend  of  the  Chixoy 
river  (Rio  Negro).  The  chief  pueblo  is  San  Miguel  Uspantan.  Sap¬ 
per’s  map  places  the  area  slightly  farther  from  the  river. 

Kekchi 

{Synonyms:  K’aktchi  or  Quekchi\ 

Kekchi  was  spoken  by  a  considerable  tribe  in  central  Guatemala. 
The  area  occupied  spread  out  on  both  sides  of  the  upper  Caha- 
bon  river,  extending  westward  to  the  river  Chixoy,  including  the 
Coban,  San  Pedro  Carcha,  Cahabon,  and  Lanquin  pueblos.  Pinart 
(4  :  preface)  says  this  language  is  spoken  throughout  the  ancient 
province  of  Vera  Paz,  and  that  it  has  various  dialects.  It  is  classed 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  69 

by  Stoll  in  liis  Pokonchi  division.  The  writer  has  followed  Stoll’s 
map,  with  which  Sapper’s  agrees  so  far  as  he  has  given  the  area. 

Pokonchi 

This  Mayan  dialect,  which  Stoll  has  made  the  type  of  his  Pokonchi 
division,  was  spoken  throughout  a  fairly  extensive  territory  in  the 
center  of  Guatemala,  about  the  headwaters  of  the  Caliabon  river,  which 
included  the  pueblos  Tactic,  Tamaja,  and  Tucuru.  Its  northern 
border,  where  it  joined  the  Kekchi  territory,  extended  a  short  distance 
south  of  Coban.  Stoll’s  map  has  been  followed,  as  Sapper’s  shows  no 
difference  except  in  the  extent  of  the  area. 

Pokomam 
{Synonym:  Pokam) 

This  Mayan  dialect,  taken  by  some  students  as  the  type  of  the 
Pokonchi  division  of  the  stock,  was  spoken  throughout  a  consider¬ 
able  region  in  southeastern  Guatemala,  including  the  capital  of  the 
republic,  extending  northward  to  the  Rio  Grande  or  upper  Motagua, 
'  and  eastward  to  the  boundary  line  between  Guatemala  and  Salvador. 
Other  pueblos  included  are  Amatitlan,  Jalapa,  Petapa,  and  Mita. 
The  territory  given  on  the  accompanying  map  is  in  accordance  with 
the  eastern  Pokomam  area  given  by  Stoll.  The  smaller  western  area 
around  Jacaltenango  marked  Pokomam  was  so  given  erroneously 
on  the  authority  of  Juarres,  as  already  stated.  The  error  is  corrected 
by  Stoll  in  his  Die  Sprache  der  Ixil-Indianer  (1:  152-153).  Sapper’s 
map  shows  two  small  detached  areas,  one  at  the  western  extremity 
and  the  other  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  area  assigned  by  Stoll,  the 
remainder  being  marked  as  now  wholly  Spanish. 

Chorti 

This  language  is  included  by  Stoll  in  his  Pokonchi  division,  seem¬ 
ingly  on  the  strength  of  the  opinion  expressed  by  Brasseur  de  Bour- 
bourg  (2:pp.  lxxxiv,  lxxxv,  note  4),  as  he  gives  no  vocabulary,  but 
Sapper  is  inclined  to  place  it  in  the  Tzental  group.  Judging  by  the 
brief  vocabulary,  its  closest  affinity  seems  to  be  with  Choi  and  Tzen¬ 
tal,  indicating  that  Sapper’s  conclusion,  in  which  he  follows  Brinton, 
is  correct.  The  territory  throughout  which  Chorti  was  spoken  lies 
along  the  eastern  border  of  Guatemala,  extending  into  Honduras  and  in¬ 
cluding  the  site  of  Copan.  Eisen,  as  quoted  by  Stoll  (2 :  107) ,  includes 
in  the  area  Copan  (in  Honduras)  and  the  high  mountains  around 
Jocotan  (in  Guatemala).  Charencey  (96)  says  the  Chorti  “ flourished 
in  all  the  province  of  Chiquimula  (Rep.  Guat.)  up  to  the  banks  of 
the  Gulf  of  Honduras  [Dulce  ?]  and  along  the  borders  of  the  Rio 
Polichic  [Motagua].”  In  his  map  (vm)  of  ruin  sites  Sapper  gives  an 


70 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


area  of  Chorti  types  extending  from  Esquipulas  (on  the  boundary  line 
between  Guatemala  and  Honduras)  on  the  south,  northward  to  and 
including  Quirigua,  and  from  Chiquimula  (Guatemala)  on  the  west  to 
Santa  Rosa  (Honduras)  on  the  east,  including  Copan.  In  his  map  v, 
showing  present  conditions,  the  remains  of  the  tribe  are  limited  to  a 
few  very  small  isolated  areas,  chiefly  about  Chiquimula  and  Copan. 
In  the  map  accompanying  the  present  volume  Sapper’s  boundaries 
on  his  map  vm  have  been  adopted  in  a  somewhat  modified  form, 
as  Stoll’s  area  does  not  appear  to  extend  far  enough  northward; 
moreover,  he  does  not  mark  on  his  map  the  portion  in  Honduras. 

Maya  Proper 
{Synonym:  Mayatlian.) 

This  language,  here  termed  in  its  limited  sense  Maya  proper 
which  Berendt  (2  :  137),  following  Landa  (14),  designates  “Maya- 
than,”  according  to  the  latter  author  (30)  was  spoken  throughout 
the  peninsula.  Knowledge  obtained  since  Panda’s  day  has  shown 
that  the  language,  including  some  minor  dialects,  was  used  not  only 
throughout  the  peninsula  but  had  penetrated  the  borders  of  some  of 
the  adjoining  territories.  Galindo  (148-149)  says  that  in  advance 
of  the  conquest  by  the  Spaniards  the  people  speaking  this  language 
occupied  all  the  peninsula  of  Yucatan,  including  the  districts  of 
Peten,  British  Honduras,  and  the  eastern  part  of  Tabasco;  Pimentel 
(ii,  3)  says,  all  Yucatan,  Isle  of  Carmen,  Pueblo  of  Montecristo  in 
Tabasco,  and  Palenque  in  Chiapas.  The  evidence  which  has  been 
presented  and  a  comparison  of  the  inscriptions  and  ruin  types  tends 
to  exclude  Palenque. 

MAYA  DIALECTS 

Besides  the  chief  language  spoken  throughout  the  peninsula — the 
Maya  proper— there  were  three  dialects,  or  rather  subdialects,  the 
differences  being  too  slight  to  constitute  distinct  dialects,  though, 
with  the  probable  exception  of  the  last,  they  represent  separate 
tribes.  These,  which  have  been  noticed  by  philologists,  are  Lacan- 
don,  Itza  (or  Peten),  and  Mopan. 

Lacandon. — The  people  speaking  this  dialect  inhabit,  or  in  the  past 
have  inhabited,  the  mountainous  region  of  the  upper  Usumacinta 
river,  in  northwestern  Guatemala  and  eastern  Chiapas.  Escobar 
(94)  says: 

A  distinction  ought  to  be  drawn  between  the  Western  and  Eastern  Lacandones.  All 
the  country  lying  on  the  W.,  between  the  bishopric  of  Ciudad  Real  and  the  province 
of  Vera  Paz  was  once  occupied  by  the  Western  Lacandones.  .  .  .  The  country  of 
the  Eastern  Lacandones  may  be  considered  as  extending  from  the  mountains  of 
Chamma,  a  day  and  a  half  from  Cob&n,  along  the  borders  of  the  Rio  de  la  Pasion  to 
Peten,  or  even  farther. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  71 

Juarros  (2  :  271)  places  the  Lacandon  along  the  Passion  river. 
Squier  (2  :  65)  gives  as  their  habitat  “  the  vast  region  lying  between 
Chiapa,  Tabasco,  Yucatan,  and  the  republic  of  Guatemala.” 
Berendt  (1 :  425)  says  u  they  are  reduced  to-day  to  a  very  insignificant 
number  living  on  and  near  Passion  river  and  its  tributaries.”  Stoll, 
whose  map  is  limited  to  Guatemala,  indicates  for  this  people  only  an 
area  in  the  extreme  northwestern  corner  of  this  republic.  Sapper 
marks  on  his -map  v  the  Lacandon  area  as  partly  in  Chiapas  and 
partly  in  Guatemala,  the  territory  in  the  former,  which  includes  the 
larger  portion,  being  situated  in  a  triangle  west  of  the  Usumacinta 
river,  adjoining  the  Tzental  area;  and  the  latter  as  extending  in  a 
narrow  strip  along  the  Chixoy,  or  Rio  Negro,  southward  into  the 
border  of  the  Kekchi  territory. 

It  is  stated  by  some  authorities  that  the  Western  Lacandones, 
who  they  claim  are  now  extinct,  spoke  a  language  different  from  that 
used  by  those  of  the  east.  A  subsequent  examination  has  shown  that 
the  former  people  probably  belonged  to  the  Choi  group,  a  conclusion 
which  would  account  for  the  supposition  that  they  are  extinct. 
Charnay  (437)  places  them  on  both  sides  of  the  Usumacinta  in  the 
region  of  Lorillard  City  (or  Menche).  They  are  not  indicated  on  the 
present  map. 

Itza  (or  Peten). — Stoll’s  map  gives  no  defined  area  for  the  people 
speaking  this  dialect,,  including  it  under  Maya.  This  course  is 
followed  by  Sapper  also,  on  his  map  v;  but  in  his  map  vui,  showing 
the  distribution  of  the  ruin-types,  he  marks  as  the  area  of  the  Peten 
tribes  all  the  northern  part  of  Guatemala  (except  a  small  strip  on  the 
western  side),  extending  south  to  the  sixteenth  parallel,  or  to  the 
border  of  the  Kekchi  territory,  and  eastward  to  the  Caribbean  sea, 
omitting  the  middle  portion  of  both  the  Choi  and  the  Mopan  areas 
as  given  by  Stoll.  From  the  writer’s  study  of  Villagutierre’s  History  of 
the  Conquest  of  the  Itza  he  receives  the  impression  that  at  the  height 
of  their  power  the  Itza  had  extended  their  territory  for  some  distance 
northward,  in  the  form  of  a  triangle,  into  the  southern  part  of  the 
state  now  designated  Yucatan.  This  author  says  (489)  that  they 
hold  toward  the  south  the  province  of  Vera  Paz  in  the  kingdom  of 
Guatemala;  toward  the  north  provinces  of  Yucatan;  toward  the  east 
to  the  sea;  toward  the  west  to  Chiapas,  and  southeast  to  the  borders 
of  Honduras.  This  region  corresponds  very  nearly  with  the  area 
marked  on  Sapper’s  map  vui,  but  it  unquestionably  encroaches  on 
the  territory  of  other  peoples. 

The  language  of  the  Itza  was  but  slightly  different  from  pure 
Maya;  the  language  spoken  by  the  inhabitants  of  Chichen  Itza  in 
the  peninsula  does  not  appear  to  have  been  other  than  pure  Maya. 

Mopan. — Very  little  is  known  in  regard  to  this  language,  as  no 
vocabulary  of  it  was  ever  obtained;  so  far  as  the  writer  is  aware, 


72 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


unless,  as  he  supposes,  the  few  words  gathered  by  Sapper  belong  to  it. 
These,  so  far  as  they  go,  seem  to  confirm  the  historical  evidence  that 
the  language  was  very  closely  related  to,  if  not  identical  with,  Maya 
proper.  Pimentel  and  Orozco  y  Berra  give  Mopan  as  a  synonym 
of  Choi.  Stoll  assigns  to  them  a  considerable  area  in  northern  Guate¬ 
mala  in  the  form  of  a  belt  across  the  state  between  the  Choi  and  Itza  areas 
as  laid  down  by  him.  Sapper  gives  as  the  area  of  his  “Maya  of  San 
Luis”  (which  he  identifies  as  the  Mopan)  a  small  belt  extending  across 
the  southern  extremity  of  British  Honduras,  and  westward  beyond  the 
border  of  Guatemala,  including  San  Luis.  Stoll  says  (2  :  94)  that  the 
Mopanas  had  on  the  south  the  Choles,  on  the  east  and  north  the 
Itzas,  and  on  the  west  the  Lacandones.  As  his  map  is  limited  to 
Guatemala  it  does  not  extend  the  area  into  British  Honduras. 

Alaguxlac 

Although  this  language  is  now  extinct,  the  evidence  presented  by 
Doctor  Brinton  in  a  paper  read  before  the  American  Philosophical 
Society,  November  4,  1887,  proves  beyond  doubt  that  it  belonged  to 
the  Nahuatlan  family  and  was  closely  related  to,  if  not  identical 
with,  the  Pipil  dialect  spoken  in  the  territory  adjoining.  According 
to  this  evidence  the  area  throughout  which  it  was  spoken  was  sub¬ 
stantially  the  same  as  that  laid  down  by  Stoll — namely,  in  the 
eastern  part  of  Guatemala,  on  the  Rio  Motagua.  It  included  the 
pueblos  San  Cristobal  Acasaguastlan,  Chimalapan,  Usumatlan,  and 
Tecolutan,  and,  as  Doctor  Brinton  states,  also  San  Agustin.  The 
data  thus  made  known  since  Stoll’s  work  was  published  require  a 
slight  modification  of  the  boundaries  given  this  tribe  by  him.  Doc¬ 
tor  Brinton  says  Chorti  was  spoken  in  the  adjoining  area,  but  Stoll 
surrounds  the  southern  half  by  the  detached  Pipil  area,  and  the 
northern  half  by  the  Choi  area. 

Pipil 

As  is  well  known,  this  language  belongs  to  the  Nahuatlan  stock 
and  is  closely  related  to  Aztec,  being,  in  fact,  but  a  dialect  of  that 
language. 

The  early  habitat  of  the  tribe  as  determined  by  Stoll  and  Sapper 
agrees  so  closely  with  that  given  by  Squier  (4:348)  andJuarros  (1 :  n,  81), 
and  the  relation  of  the  tribes  as  found  by  Alvarado  in  1524,  that  it  is 
necessary  to  describe  here  only  their  situation  as  set  forth  by  the  first 
two  authorities.  They  were  located  in  two  separate  areas.  The 
larger  territory  lay  chiefly  along  the  Pacific  coast  in  southeastern 
Guatemala,  from  the  meridian  of  Escuintla  eastward  into  Salvador 
to  the  lower  southward  stretch  of  the  Lempa  river.  This  terri¬ 
tory  was  intercepted,  however,  by  that  of  the  Xinca  tribe  and  by  a 
colony  of  the  Lencan  stock,  being  thus  divided  into  two  parts,  one  in 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTEAL  AMERICA  73 

Guatemala  and  the  other  and  chief  portion  in  Salvador.  Sapper  also 
represents  a  narrow  extension  of  the  Pokomam  territory  into  the 
western  section.  The  other  division  was  located  along  the  upper 
Motagua  river  in  eastern  Guatemala  between  the  Choi  and  Pokomam 
areas.  As  stated  above,  the  Alaguilac  language,  spoken  throughout 
a  small  adjoining  area,  was  probably  identical  with  the  Pipil. 

Although  on  the  accompanying  map  Santa  Lucia  Cozumalhuapa  is 
included  in  the  Cakchikel  area,  the  writer  is  inclined  to  ascribe  the 
sculptures  at  this  place  to  the  Pipil  tribe,  or  at  least  to  the  Nahuatlan 
stock. 

XlNCA 

{Synonym:  Jinca) 

This  language,  which,  with  its  dialects,  appears  to  form  an  inde¬ 
pendent  stock,  here  named  Xincan,  was  spoken  throughout  an  area 
of  limited  extent  along  the  Pacific  coast,  in  the  extreme  southeastern 
part  of  Guatemala,  extending  from  the  Rio  Michatoyat  eastward  to  the 
boundary  of  the  republic.  It  embraces  three  closely  allied  dialects, 
which  it  is  deemed  unnecessary  to  mark  on  the  map,  to  wit,  Sina- 
cantan,  Jupiltepeque,  and  Jutiapa,  spoken,  respectively,  in  the 
pueblos  of  the  same  names.  Brief  vocabularies  of  the  three  are  given 
by  Brinton  (2) . 

Lenca 

This  language,  which  forms  a  distinct  stock — the  Lencan — 
seems  to  be  known  in  some  four  or  five  closely  allied  dialects,  the 
term  Lenca  not  being  applied  to  any  one  dialect,  but  comprehending 
all.  From  Squier’s  investigations  and  other  data  it  appears  that 
the  Indians  speaking  this  language  formerly  occupied  a  large  area 
in  central  and  western  Honduras,  extending  to  the  Pacific  through 
that  part  of  Salvador  lying  between  Lempa  river  and  the  Bay 
of  Fonseca.  The  small  district  in  southeastern  Guatemala  along 
the  western  bank  of  the  lower  Bio  de  la  Paz,  marked  by  Stoll  (2) 
on  his  map  as  Pupuluca,  from  data  furnished  by  Juarros,  must  be 
Lencan  territory.  There  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  the  people 
occupying  this  area  and  speaking  the  so-called  Pupuluca  dialect 
were  closely  related  to  or  identical  with  the  Lenca  and  constituted 
a  colony  of  that  tribe.  This  is  clearly  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact 
that  they  were  related  to  and  spoke  a  language  similar  to  that  of 
the  people  of  eastern  Salvador,  who  were  certainly  Lenca.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  enter  here  into  a  further  discussion  of  the  varied 
use  of  the  terms  Popoloca  and  Pupuluca.  In  his  List  of  Families 
and  Dialects  the  writer  has  designated  the  Mayan  Pupuluca 
(spoken  near  Antigua,  Guatemala)  as  Pupuluca  (a),  and  the  Lencan 
Pupuluca  (spoken  along  the  Bio  de  la  Paz)  as  Pupuluca  (6).  The 
8347°— Bull.  44—11—6 


74 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


mistake  of  Stoll  (2:27)  in  calling  the  Pupuluca  ( b )  a  Mixe  dialect 
is  pointed  out  by  Brinton  (3:152).  The  latter  author  appears  to 
have  made  precisely  the  same  mistake,  however,  in  his  paper  on 
the  Xinca  Indians,  read  before  the  American  Philosophical  Society, 
October  17,  1884.  On  his  map  vm  Sapper  places  a  Lencan  colony — 
possibly  intended  to  correspond  with  Pupuluca  (6) — slightly  farther 
to  the  northeast  than  the  locality  given  by  Stoll,  who  follows 
Juarros.  The  last-named  authority  (l:i,  98)  mentions  Conguaco 
as  the  pueblo  of  the  people  speaking  this  dialect,  which  is  in  the  area 
marked  by  him.  The  other  dialects  were  Guajiquero,  Intibucat, 
Opatoro,  and  Similiton,  spoken  in  central  Honduras  in  and  about 
the  pueblos  of  the  same  names,  respectively.  Sapper  (1:28) 
mentions'  also  as  dialects  Chilanga  and  Guatijigua,  spoken  in  and 
about  villages  so  named,  in  northeastern  Salvador.  He  fails, 
however,  to  furnish  vocabularies  by  which  to  determine  relation¬ 
ship,  having  obtained,  it  seems,  only  twenty  words  of  the  former 
dialect.  Nevertheless,  as  the  pueblos  are  in  the  region  where  Lenca 
prevailed,  there  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  they  are  local  variations 
of  that  language.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  mark  the  areas 
of  these  dialects  on  the  accompanying  map.  It  is  possible  the 
Chondal  of  Squier,  mentioned  below,  should  be  considered  a  dialect, 
for  it  appears  from  a  statement  by  Brinton  that  Desire  Pector  termed 
them  “Chontal-Lencas.” 

From  the  data  obtainable  it  is  impossible  to  define  accurately  the 
boundaries  of  the  chief  Lencan  area.  The  writer  has  been  guided 
in  this  respect  chiefly  by  Squier  (4:378  et  seq.),  omitting,  of  course, 
his  conclusion  that  the  Jicaque  and  Paya  belong  to  the  same  stock 
as  the  Lenca.  He  was  inclined  to  include  geographically  not  only 
the  department  of  San  Miguel  in  Salvador  and  those  of  Santa 
Barbara  and  Comayagua  in  Honduras,  but  also  Clioluteca  and  parts 
of  Tegucigalpa,  Olancho,  and  Yoro  in  the  latter  state  (as  they  were 
then  defined);  also  the  islands  of  Boatan  and  Guanaja.  After 
eliminating  the  territories  of  the  Jicaque  and  Paya  the  writer  has 
outlined  the  Lencan  territory  to  correspond  as  nearly  as  possible 
with  the  most  recent  data.  As  mapped  it  appears  to  conform,  at 
least  in  a  general  way,  with  Sapper’s  determination,  except  that  it 
adds  a  small  extension  into  Nicaragua  to  include  Squier’ s  Chondal, 
who,  according  to  Brinton  (3:149),  are  Lenca.  It  includes  that 
part  of  San  Salvador  east  of  the  Lempa  river,  the  modern  depart¬ 
ments  of  Paraiso,  Tegucigalpa,  La  Paz,  Intibuca,  Comayagua,  and 
parts  of  Santa  Barbara  and  Gracias  in  Honduras,  and  extends  into  the 
southern  part  of  Segovia  in  Nicaragua. 

Tlascalteca 

This  is  a  dialect  of  the  Nahuatlan  family,  closely  allied  to  the 
Tlascalan,  which  from  a  statement  of  Scherzer  (456)  appears  to 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  75 

have  been  spoken  by  a  small  colony  in  Salvador  about  Izalco.  It 
is  probably  merely  a  subdialect  of  or  pure  Pipil,  as  the  latter  is,  or 
was,  the  language  common  to  that  section.  It  has  not  been  noted 
on  the  accompanying  map. 

Jicaque 

C Synonym :  Xicaque) 

This  language,  which,  so  far  as  known  at  present,  was  that  of  an 
independent  stock  here  named  Jicaquean,  is,  or  was,  spoken  by  a 
tribe  of  Indians  living  in  northern  Honduras.  According  to  Squier 
(4  :  378)  their  territory  extended  from  the  Rio  Ulva  on  the  west  to  the 
Rio  Negro  (or  Black  river,  also  called  Rio  Tin  to)  on  the  east,  though 
on  his  map  they  are  placed  between  the  Ulva  and  Roman  rivers. 
How  far  back  into  the  interior  their  district  stretched  is  not  stated, 
but  it  is  known  that  it  did  not  include  Comayagua.  Although 
Membreno  (195)  has  a  note  on  this  tribe,  he  fails  to  indicate  the 
locality  further  than  by  presenting  the  vocabularies  of  two  dialects 
of  the  language — “ Jicaque  of  Yoro”  and  “Jicaque  of  Palmar.”  He 
speaks  of  the  latter  as  “cerca  de  San  Pedro”  (195);  the  other  pre¬ 
sumably  was  spoken  in  the  district  of  Yoro,  as  the  vocabulary  given 
appears  to  have  been  obtained  by  an  official  of  that  district.  The 
difference  between  these  two  dialects  as  shown  by  the  vocabularies 
is  as  great,  if  not  greater,  than  that  between  the  Maya  proper  and 
the  Cakchikel.  The  area  for  this  tribe  marked  on  the  accompanying 
map  is  determined  according  to  the  writer’s  best  judgment  from  the 
brief  data  obtainable. 

Paya 

Like  the  preceding  language,  Paya  forms  a  distinct  stock  which, 
following  the  rule  established  by  Maj.  J.  W.  Powell,  has  been  named 
the  Payan.  Squier  says  (4:378),  “The  Xicaques,  greatly  reduced, 
exist  in  the  district  lying  between  the  Rio  Ulua  and  Rio  Tinto, 
and  tile  Payas  in  the  triangle  between  the  Tinto,  the  sea,  and  the 
Rio  Wanks,  or  Segovia.”  On  his  map,  however,  he  extends  them 
westward  to  the  River  Roman  (or  Aguan).  Membreno  (195)  states 
that  the  principal  center  of  the  Paya  is  the  pueblo  of  Culmi,  or  Dulce 
Nombre,  slightly  south  of  the  center  of  the  area  marked  on  the  ac¬ 
companying  map.  This  area  and  that  of  the  Jicaque  are  supposed  to 
represent  the  territory  of  these  two  tribes  before  the  incoming  of  the 
Carib,  now  occupying  the  coast.  Bell  (258)  says  they  inhabit  the 
headwaters  of  the  Black  and  Patook  rivers.  Squier  expresses  the 
opinion  that  the  territory  of  the  Lenca  extended  to  the  north  coast, 
but  it  must  be  remembered  that  he  included  the  Jicaque  in  the 
Lencan  group.  Whether  the  Choi  territory  extended  eastward  to  the 
Rio  Ulua  is  somewhat  doubtful;  Sapper  does  not  place  it  so  far. 


76 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


As  no  information  in  relation  to  the  intervening  strip  is  available, 
it  is  considered  best  to  connect  it  with  that  of  the  Jicaque. 

Carib 

As  the  Carib  of  the  gulf  coast  of  Honduras  were  not  established 
in  this  region  until  near  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  they 
may  be  omitted  from  extended  consideration  here,  as  they  have  been 
from  the  map.  It  is  necessary  to  remark  only  that  they  are  confined  to 
the  northern  coast  of  Honduras.  But  one  dialect  has  been  noticed — 
the  Moreno — a  vocabulary  of  which  is  given  by  Membreno.  He 
refers  to  the  pueblo  of  Santafe  de  Punta-hicacos  as  inhabited  by 
Morenos.  Stoll  locates  a  small  colony  about  Livingstone,  at  the 
embouchure  of  the  Rio  Dulce,  on  the  northeast  coast  of  Guatemala. 

Matagalpa 

This  is  the  chief  if  not  the  only  language  of  a  small  stock  named  by 
Brinton  (3  :  149)  the  Matagalpan.  Squier  applies  the  name  Chondal 
(Chontal  of  Oviedo  and  Gomara)  in  part  to  the  people  speaking  this 
language,  but  without  mention  of  any  distinction.  Recognition  of 
this  distinction  is  due  to  Doctor  Brinton (3  :  149),  who  obtained  among 
the  papers  of  Doctor  Berendt  a  vocabulary  of  the  language.  The 
area  occupied,  having  the  city  of  Matagalpa  as  its  central  point,  em¬ 
braced  a  large  part  of  the  Matagalpa  district,  and  extended  into  the 
districts  of  Segovia  and  Chontaies  in  Nicaragua.  Sapper  (1:  29-30) 
says,  “At  present  the  Matagalpan  language  is  spoken  as  an  isolated 
dialect  only  in  the  Salvadorean  villages  Cacaopera  and  Lislique  by 
some  3,000  persons.”  Whether  this  dialect  differs  in  any  respect 
from  Matagalpa  proper  is  not  stated.  The  two  villages  mentioned 
are  situated  in  the  extreme  northeastern  corner  of  Salvador.  As 
they  are  a  considerable  distance  from  Matagalpa,  it  is  best,  perhaps, 
to  consider  the  language  spoken  in  them  as  a  subdialect  of  Matagalpa 
proper. 

M ANGLE 

{Synonym:  Choluteca) 

Extending  along  the  Pacific  coast  from  the  Bay  of  Fonseca  in 
Honduras  to  the  Gulf  of  Nicoya  in  Costa  Rica,  and  living  between 
the  lakes  and  the  ocean,  were  several  small  tribes  belonging  to 
different  linguistic  stocks:  three — Mangue,  Dirian,  Orotinan — to  the 
Chiapanecan;  one — Niquiran — to  the  Nahuatlan;  and 'another — 
Subtiaban — forming  an  independent  family. 

Mangue,  or  Choluteca,  as  Squier  designated  it,  a  Chiapanecan  dia¬ 
lect,  was  the  most  northwesterly  tribe  of  the  series,  the  area  occupied 
extending,  according  to  this  writer  (3  :  n,  310),  northward  from  the 


Thomas]  INDIAN"  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  77 

territory  of  the  Subtiaba  (Squier’s  Nagranclans)  “along  the  Gulf  of 
Fonseca  into  what  is  now  Honduras.”  The  distance  it  extended  into 
the  interior  of  this  territory  is  not  given,  but  it  has  been  carried  on 
the  map  in  this  direction  to  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Lencan  ter¬ 
ritory,  though  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  data  on  this  point  are 
exceedingly  meager  and  unsatisfactory.  In  locating  the  tribes  form¬ 
erly  dwelling  along  the  Pacific  coast  of  Nicaragua  we  have  the  benefit 
of  Doctor  Berendt’s  statements  in  his  address  (2  :  132-145),  which 
agree  very  closely  with  Squier’s  conclusion,  though  neither  indicates 
the  extent  into  the  interior,  except  where  limited  by  the  lakes. 
Gomara  (1 :  264;  2  :  457)  and  Herrera  mention  a  tribe  (the  Corobici) 
which  seems  to  be  identical  with  the  Mangue  (or  Chorotega).  The 
latter  author  says  (n,  dec.  3,  121),  “Hablaban  en  Nicaragua  cinco 
Lenguas  diferentes,  Coribici,  que  lo  hablan  mucho  en  Chuloteca,”  etc. 
Nevertheless,  Peralta  thinks  the  Coribici  were  the  ancestors  of  the 
Guatuso  (see  below).  It  would  seem  that  Mangue  is  a  comprehen¬ 
sive  term  precisely  equivalent  to  Chorotega,  properly  used,  that  is, 
to  include  the  Chiapanecan  element  in  this  region — Choluteca,  Dirian, 
and  Orotinan.  However,  as  Squier  (3:311-312)  has  created  con¬ 
fusion  in  the  use  of  the  terms  Chorotegan  and  Cholutecan,  it  is  best 
to  follow  Brinton  in  restoring  the  old  term  Mangue  to  supersede  Cho¬ 
luteca. 

SUBTIABAN 

( Synonyms :  Nagrandan,  Maribi) 

This  language,  which  forms  a  distinct  family  known  by  the  same 
name,  is  the  same  as  Squier’s  Nagrandan  and  Berendt’s  Maribi. 
The  territory  throughout  which  it  was  spoken  is  described  by  Squier 
(3:310)  as  “  the  Plain  of  Leon,  or  district  between  the  northern  extrem¬ 
ity  of  Lake  Managua  and  the  Pacific;”  this  probably  included  the 
greater  portion  of  the  district  of  Leon.  As  the  same  author  states 
in  another  place,  it  was  bounded  on  the  northwest  by  the  territory 
of  the  Choluteca  or  Mangue.  This  language,  which,  judging  by 
Sapper’s  map  (1)  is  not  yet  entirely  extinct,  though  Sapper  gives  no 
vocabulary,  is  generally  conceded  by  philologists  to  be  not  connected 
with  any  known  family,  and  the  vocabulary  furnished  by  Squier  (3) 
appears  to  justify  this  conclusion,  notwithstanding  a  slight  resem¬ 
blance  to  the  Dorasque  on  the  one  hand  and  to  the  Matagalpan  on 
the  other. 

Dirian 

This  language,  which  belongs  to  the  Chiapanecan  family,  was 
spoken  by  the  people  who  formerly  occupied  the  territory  between 
the  upper  extremity  of  Lake  Nicaragua,  the  river  Tipitapa,  and  the 
southern  half  of  Lake  Managua  and  the  Pacific.  Their  principal 


78 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


towns  were  situated  where  now  stand  the  cities  of  Granada,  Masaya, 
and  Managua,  and  the  villages  of  Tipitapa,  Diriomo,  and  Diriamba. 
(Squier,  3:310).  They  are  supposed  to  be  now  extinct.  The  name 
Dirian  signifies  “ people  of  the  hills.” 

Niquiran 

This  language,  which  belongs  to  the  Nahuatlan.  family,  and  is 
closely  related  to  Pipil  apd  Aztec,  was  spoken  by  a  colony  proba¬ 
bly  from  the  Pipil  group  of  Salvador  and  Guatemala.  The  area 
occupied  was  the  narrow  strip  between  Lake  Nicaragua  and  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  and  the  neighboring  islands  of  the  lake.  The  fact 
that  these  Indians  belonged  to  the  11  Mexican”  (Nahuatlan)  stock 
was  noticed  by  Oviedo,  who  applied  to  them  the  name  Niquirans. 
Even  the  short  vocabulary  given  by  Squier  makes  the  relation 
clear,  showing  that  the  people  now  under  consideration  pertained  to 
the  Aztec  group  and  were  closely  related  to  the  Pipil. 

Orotinan 

This  third  Chiapanecan  dialect  of  the  southern  section  was  spoken 
throughout  an  area  in  northwestern  Costa  Pica  extending  from  the 
southern  shore  of  Lake  Nicaragua  southward  to  and  along  both 
shores  of  the  Gulf  of  Nicoya  for  the  greater  part  of  its  length,  and 
westward  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  Squier  (3:310)  says  merely,  “  occupy- 
ng  the  country  around  the  Gulf  of  Nicoya,  and  to  the  southward  of 
Lake  Nicaragua.”  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  (1 :  ii,  110)  says  the 
Orotinas  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Gulf  of  Nicoya  have  as  their  principal 
villages  Nicoya,  Orotina,  Cantren,  and  Chorote.  Oviedo  (iv,  108) 
also  locates  them  about  the  Gulf  of  Nicoya.  Peralta  (1  :  720)  gives 
the  river  Barranca  as  their  southern  limit  on  the  east  side  of  the  gulf. 
Fernandez  (1  :  548)  gives  the  latitude  of  the  city  of  Punta  Arenas  as 
their  southern  limit  on  the  east  coast,  agreeing  closely  in  this  respect 
with  Peralta’s  conclusion. 

The  writer  has  no  vocabulary  of  this  particular  colony,  but  from 
their  discovery  by  the  Spaniards  in  the  sixteenth  century  history 
speaks  of  them  as  11  Chorotegans,”  thus  connecting  them  with  the 
Mangue  and  Dirian  tribes.  Additional  remarks  on  this  tribe  will  be 
made  in  treating  of  the  peoples  of  Costa  Rica. 

Ulva 

C Synonym *  Sumo) 

As  the  data  at  hand  are  too  meager  to  justify  an  attempt  to  indi¬ 
cate  on  the  map  the  limits  of  the  tribal  areas  of  the  Ulvan  family, 
now  to  be  dealt  with,  it  seems  best  to  give  only  the  boundaries  of 


thomas]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  79 

the  area  occupied  by  the  entire  family,  indicating  the  tribal  or  sub- 
tribal  names  at  such  points  therein  as,  from  the  best  evidence  acces¬ 
sible,  appear  to  have  been  occupied  by  them  respectively.  The  fact 
must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  the  very  existence  of  some  of 
these  tribes  or  sub  tribes  is  disputed. 

After  comparing  what  is  said  by  Squier  and  other  authorities  on 
the  subject,  Brinton,  the  principal  authority  here  followed  in  the 
classification  of  'the  Ulvan  tribes,  gives  (3:  162-163)  the  following 
with  their  respective  habitats : 

Carchas,  or  Cukras,  on  the  Rio  Mico,  above  the  Matlack  Falls. 

Cocos,  on  the  Rio  Coco  (Segovia). 

Melchoras,  on  the  Rio  de  los  Ramas  (Bluefields). 

Micos,  on  the  Rio  Mico. 

Pantasmas,  in  the  upper  basin  of  the  Rio  Coco. 

Parrastahs,  on  the  Rio  Mico. 

Siquias,  on  the  upper  Rio  Mico. 

Subironas,  on  the  Rio  Coco. 

Taocas,  or  Twakas,  at  San  Bias,  on  the  Rio  Twaka. 

Ulvas  (Wool was  or  Smoos),  on  the  headwaters  of  the  Bluefields  river. 

It  must  be  added,  however,  that  Brinton  does  not  furnish  his 
authority  for  some  of  these  names  and  localities,  and  that  Sapper 
(1 :  29)  seems  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  his  list  and  peoples  the  areas 
very  largely  with  the  Sumo.  He  says: 

The  Sumos  are  mentioned  by  Brinton  under  the  name  Ulvas;  aside  from  the  Indians 
given  as  Bulbuls,  Carchas,  Cocos,  Micos,  Parrastahs,  Pantasmas,  Melchoras,  Siquias, 
Smoos,  Subironas,  Twakas,  and  Wool  was,  all  however  seem  to  belong  to  the  Sumos. 

Squier  and  other  authorities  mention  the  Twaka,  Cukra,  and  Ulva; 
and  Beclus  (283)  names  in  addition  the  Pantasma,  Melchora,  Siquia, 
and  Laman.  The  last-named  author  locates  on  his  map  most  of  the 
names  he  gives,  but  not  consistently  with  his  text.  Bell  (1  : 242- 
268)  mentions  the  following  tribes:  The  Smoos,  “the  most  numerous 
tribe,”  on  the  headwaters  of  all  the  rivers  from  Bluefields  to  Patook 
[Patuca];  the  Twaka,  “a  tribe  of  Smoos,”  along  the  Twaka  river,  a 
branch  of  the  Prinz  Awala;  the  Toongla,  along  the  other  branch  of  the 
same  river— a  mixed  race  of  Smoos  and  Mosquito  Indians;  the  Cookra, 
around  Bluefields. 

.  Young  (80)  says  the  principal  residence  of  the  Twaka  at  that  time 
was  about  the  head  of  the  Patuca  river.  Squier  (4)  locates  them,  on 
his  map,  on  the  middle  section  of  Segovia  river,  which  forms  in  part 
the  boundary  line  between  Honduras  and  Nicaragua.  Beclus  (261) 
makes  the  tribe  a  member  of  the  Lenca  group  and  locates  them  on  the 
upper  affluents  of  the  Patuca  river. 

As  before  noted,  Brinton  locates  the  Cookra  (Cukra,  Carcha)  on  the 
Rio  Mico  above  Matlack  Falls.  According  to  Squier’s  map,  the  Mico 
is  the  same  as  the  Bluefields  river,  which  has  received  also  the  name 
Escondido,  and  was  by  the  Indians  called  Lama  and  Siguia,  the  latter 
name  referring  probably  only  to  a  tributary.  Squier  places  the 


80 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Cukra  in  the  interior,  midway  between  the  Bluefields  and  Segovia 
rivers.  Reclus  (283)  locates  them  well  up  the  Segovia  river.  This 
author,  however,  gives  the  Carca  as  a  different  tribe. 

As  has  been  seen,  Brinton  places  the  Ulva  (Ulna,  Woolwa,  Walwa, 
Smoos,  Sumo)  on  the  headwaters  of  the  Bluefields  river;  Squier,  on 
the  middle  course  of  the  same  river.  Squier  locates  the  Melchora 
immediately  east  of  the  southern  end  of  Lake  Nicaragua.  The  name 
Sumo  (or  Smoos)  appears  to  be  used  rather  indefinitely,  but  more 
generally  as  an  equivalent  of  the  stock  name  (Ulvan),  the  people 
embraced  being  considered  as  properly  forming  but  one  tribe,  and  the 
above-named  supposed  tribes  as  mere  minor  and  local  subdivisions. 
It  is  probable  that  the  Ulvan  dialects  were  related  to  Chibcha,  but 
for  the  present  it  has  been  thought  best  to  keep  them  distinct. 

Rama 

As  stated  by  Brinton  and  Sapper,  the  Indians  speaking  this  language 
are  restricted  at  present  to  a  small  island  in  the  Bluefields  lagoon,  and 
were  confined  to  the  same  island  at  the  time  Bell  lived  in  the  Mos¬ 
quito  territory  (1846-1862).  There  is  evidence,  however,  that  formerly 
they  occupied  a  much  larger  area  on  the  neighboring  mainland,  but 
whether  this  region  lay  along  the  Bluefields  river  or  farther  south  it 
is  impossible  to  decide  with  certainty  from  the  meager  data  obtainable. 
Bell  (259)  says: 

The  Ramas  inhabit  a  small  island  at  the  southern  extremity  of  Blewfields  lagoon. 
They  are  only  a  miserable  remnant  of  a  numerous  tribe  that  formerly  lived  on  the 
St.  Johns  and  other  rivers  in  that  neighborhood.  A  great  number  of  them  still  live  at 
the  head  of  the  Rio  Frio,  which  runs  into  the  St.  Johns  river  [Rio  San  Juan]  at  San 
Carlos  fort. 

Those  at  the  head  of  the  Rio  Frio,  Costa  Rica,  are  without  doubt 
the  Guatuso. 

Squier  (4:  366)  locates  them  between  the  Bluefields  and  San  Juan 
rivers,  indicating,  as  does  Bell,  a  former  more  southerly  habitat. 
This  conclusion  agrees  with  the  indications  furnished  by  the  very 
brief  vocabulary  of  the  language  which  has  been  obtained,  and  which 
shows  slight  affinity  with  the  Talamancan  dialects,  but  a  closer  rela¬ 
tion  with  those  of  the  Doraskean  group  of  the  Chibchan  family. 
Following  Brinton,  the  writer  has  associated  it  with  the  latter. 
Bell’s  supposition  that  the  Rama  are  identical  with  the  people  living 
on  the  Rio  Frio,  Costa  Rica — that  is  to  say,  with  the  Guatuso — is, 
however,  an  error,  as  appears  from  comparison  of  the  languages  of  the 
two  peoples  and  from  the  great  difference  in  their  characteristics  so 
far  as  known,  although  both  belong  to  the  Chibchan  stock. 

Mosquito 

The  mixed  race  designated  by  this  name  inhabits  the  Gulf  coast  of 
Honduras  and  Nicaragua  from  Cape  Gracias  southward  to  a  point 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  81 

about  midway  between  Bluefields  and  San  Juan  rivers,  extending 
but  a  comparatively  short  distance  toward  the  interior,  except  along 
the  banks  of  some  of  the  larger  rivers.  The  statements  of  writers  of 
some  years  ago  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  country  occupied  by  these 
Indians  must  be  received  with  some  reserve,  being  more  or  less 
warped  by  their  relations  with  the  contending  governments.  Even 
Squier  must  be  included  in  this  class.  It  is  unnecessary  to  quote 
here  the  statements  referred  to.  It  may  be  stated,  however,  that 
Pittier  (9),  judging  by  the  local  names,  is  of  the  opinion  that  in  the 
past  people  of  this  race  occupied  the  coast  of  Costa  Rica  from  San 
Juan  river  to  Chiriqui  lagoon.  In  the  present  paper  Sapper  is  fol¬ 
lowed  as  to  the  area  embraced  in  the  Mosquito  territory. 

The  language  is  considered  distinct.  Lucien  Adam,  who  has 
studied  its  grammatical  construction,  decides  that  it  can  not  be 
brought  into  relation  with  either  the  Caribbean  or  the  Chibchan 
stock.  Notwithstanding  this  high  authority,  the  writer  is  inclined 
to  accept  the  traditional,  or  perhaps  it  may  be  said  the  semiliis- 
torical,  assertion  that  the  primary  element  of  the  mixture  was  Carib. 
That  the  language  contains  Carib  elements,  whether  borrowed  or  not, 
soon  becomes  evident  on  comparison. 

General  Remarks  on  the  Tribes  of  Costa  Rica 

Continuing  the  investigation  southward,  Costa  Rica  next  engages 
attention.  On  account  of  its  bearing  on  the  determination  of  the 
boundaries  of  the  areas  throughout  which  other  dialects  were  spoken, 
it  is  necessary  to  refer  again  to  Orotina,1  already  noticed  (see  p.  78), 
in  order  to  fix  more  definitely  the  eastern  and  southeastern  boundary 
of  the  area  throughout  which  it  was  spoken.  As  already  stated 
(p.  78),  Peralta  appears  to  give  the  Barranca  river,  which  enters  the 
Gulf  of  Nicova  on  the  eastern  side,  near  the  city  of  Punta  Arenas,  as 
the  southeastern  boundary.  Fernandez  (1:548)  asserts  it  was 
proven  that  Orotina  was  a  generic  speech  applicable  to  all  the  Gulf 
region  of  Nicoya.  He  says  also  (1:35,  note  b),  in  commenting  on 
the  Relacion  of  Andres  de  Cereceda,  who  accompanied  Gil  Gonzales 
de  Avila  (about  1522)  on  his  expedition  northward  along  the  western 
coast,  that  the  Orotina  occupied  the  coast  (on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
gulf)  between  the  rivers  Aranjuez  and  Chomes  (Guasimal).  These 
are  two  small  rivers,  but  a  few  miles  apart,  which  enter  the  gulf  on 
the  eastern  side  a  short  distance  north  of  Rio  Barranca.  Fernandez 
thus  locates  their  southern  boundary  substantially  at  the  same  point 
as  that  indicated  by  Peralta. 

The  northern  and  western  limits,  however,  are  not  so  definitely 
given. 

1  Orotina:  Sn.  Urutina,  Gurutina,  Nicoya.  Tlie  name  Nicoya  was  seldom  used  as  referring  to  the 
people  or  language,  but  was  used  interchangeably  with  Orotina  as  referring  to  the  gulf,  and  sometimes 
to  the  surrounding  regions  occupied"  by  the  Orotina. 


82 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


Peralta  (1:  720)  says  their  seat  was  north  of  the  Pio  Barranca  and 
southeast  from  the  Pio  Zapandi  (or  Tempisque),  the  river  which 
flows  south  and  enters  the  Gulf  of  Nicoya  at  its  extreme  northwestern 
point.  But  the  statement  of  Fernandez  given  above  includes  the 
western  peninsula,  as  does  that  of  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg,  mentioned 
in  the  first  reference  to  the  Orotina.  Oviedo  (hi,  111)  says,  “The 
Indians  of  Nicoya  and  Orosi  are  of  the  language  of  the  Chorotegas.” 
This  apparently  includes  the  area  now  embraced  in  the  district  of 
Guanacaste,  which  includes  the  peninsula,  and  is  probably  what  Squier 
based  his  conclusion  on,  the  word  “Chorotegas”  being  used  here  in  a 
generic  sense,  and  hence  including  the  Orotina.  Peralta  says  (1:806, 
note)  that  in  Nicoya  (the  peninsula)  the  Orotinan  language  was  spoken, 
as  conjectured  by  Orozco  y  Berra,  following  Oviedo  and  Torque- 
mada.  The  data  seem  to  justify,  therefore,  outlining  the  Orotinan 
area  as  on  the  accompanying  map. 

It  appears  from  a  later  paper  by  Peralta,  however,  that  he  includes 
as  Orotinan  territory  the  area  now  embraced  in  the  district  of  Guana- 
caste  as  marked  on  the  writer’s  map.  This  paper  was  prepared  by 
Peralta  as  part  of  his  report  as  commissioner  of  Costa  Rica  to  the 
Columbian  Historical  Exposition  at  Madrid  in  1892.  Not  having 
access  to  the  original  paper,  the  writer  here  quotes  from  the  extract 
given  by  Doctor  Brinton  (5:  40-42),  one  of  the  commissioners  of  the 
United  States  to  that  exposition.  As  Peralta’s  paper  bears  on  the 
ethnography  of  the  entire  territory  of  Costa  Rica,  the  portion 
relating  to  the  ethnographic  distribution  is  quoted  in  full  for  the 
purpose  of  further  reference: 

On  the  shores  of  the  Pacific,  in  the  peninsula  of  Nicoya,  in  all  that  territory  which 
now  constitutes  the  province  of  Guanacaste,  and  embracing  all  the  vicinity  of  the 
gulf  of  Nicoya  to  the  point  of  Herradura,  lived  the  Chorotegas  or  Mangues,  divided 
into  various  tribes  or  chieftancies,  feudataries  of  the  Cacique  of  Nicoya,  to  wit,  Diria, 
Cangen,  Zapanci,  Pococi,  Paro,  Orotina,  and  Chorotega,  properly  so  called,  in  the 
valley  of  the  Rio  Grande.  By  the  side  of  these  dwelt  the  immigrant  Nahoas,  who 
carried  this  far  the  arts  and  traditions  of  the  Aztecs,  and  the  cultivation  of  cacao,  and 
obtained  a  supremacy  over  the  previous  inhabitants.  The  Chorotegas  spoke  the 
language  of  the  same  name,  or  the  Mangue,  a  branch,  if  not  the  trunk  and  origin,  of 
the  Chiapanec.  .  .  .  The  Nahuas,  whose  most  important  colonies  controlled  the 
isthmus  of  Rivas  between  Lake  Nicaragua  and  the  Pacific,  were  established  in  Nicoya 
and  spoke  the  Mexican  or  Nahuatl  language. 

A  Mexican  colony  also  existed  in  the  valley  of  Telorio  (valley  of  the  Buy,  or  of  the 
Mexicans)  near  the  Bay  del  Almirante,  and  inhabited  the  island  of  Toj^r,  or  Zorobaro 
(now  of  Columbus),  and  the  towns  of  Chicaua,  Moyaua,  Quequexque,  and  Corotapa, 
on  the  mainland,  this  being  the  farthest  eastward  in  Costa  Rica,  or  in  Central  America, 
to  which  the  Nahuas  reached,  so  far  as  existing  evidence  proves. 

Between  the  Lake  of  Nicaragua  and  the  gulf  of  Nicoya,  to  the  east  of  the  volcano 
of  Orosi  and  the  river  Tempisque,  near  longitude  85°  west  of  Greenwich,  dwelt  the  mys¬ 
terious  nation  of  the  Corobicies,  or  Corbesies,  ancestors  of  the  existing  Guatusos. 
To  the  east  of  the  same  meridian  were  the  Votos,  occupying  the  southern  shores  of 
the  Rio  San  Juan  to  the  valley  of  the  Sarapiqui. 


(Thomas]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA 


83 


To  the  east  of  the  Sarapiqui,  and  from  the  mouths  of  the  San  Juan  on  the  Atlantic 
to  the  mouth  of  the  river  Matina,  was  the  important  province  of  Suerre,  belonging 
to  the  Guetars,  who  occupied  the  ground  to  Turrialba  and  Atirro,  in  the  valleys  of 
the  Reventazon  and  the  river  Suerre  or  Pacuar. 

Between  the  river  Natina  and  the  river  Tarire  were  the  provinces  of  Poeoci  and  of 
the  Tariacas.  To  the  east  of  the  Tarire  to  the  Bay  del  Almirante,  dwelt  the  Viceitas, 
Cabecares,  and  Terrabas  (Terr§bes,  Terbis,  or  Tiribies). 

On  the  Bay  del  Almirante  to  Point  Sorobeta  or  Terbi  there  was  the  Chichimec 
colony,  already  referred  to,  whose  cacique  Iztolin  conversed  in  the  Mexican  language 
with  Juan  Vasquez  de  Coronado  in  1564. 

The  Changuenes  occupied  the  forests  about  the  headwaters  of  the  Rio  Ravalo. 

The  Doraces,  south  of  the  Laguna  of  Chiriqui,  and  at  the  foot  of  the  Cordillera, 
adjoined  in  the  valley  of  the  river  Cricamola  or  Guaymi  with  the  warlike  nation  of 
the  latter  name. 

The  Guaymies  occupied  the  coast  and  the  interior  lands  situated  between  the  rivers 
Guaymi  and  Conception,  of  Veragua. 

In  front  of  the  valley  of  the  Guaymi  lies  the  Island  del  Escodo,  the  governmental 
limit  of  Costa  Rica;  so  that  the  Guaymis  were  distributed  in  nearly  equal  parts  be¬ 
tween  the  jurisdiction  of  Costa  Rica  and  of  Veragua. 

In  the  interior,  in  the  highlands  about  Cartago,  on  the  slopes  both  of  the  Atlantic 
and  the  Pacific,  were  the  provinces  Guarco,  Toyopan,  and  Aserri;  farther  west,  toward 
the  gulf  of  Nicoya,  Pacaca,  Garabito,  and  Chomes  adjoined  along  the  summits  of 
La  Herradura  and  Tilaran  with  the  Chorotegas. 

These  provinces  formed  the  territory  of  the  Huetares,  or  Guetares,  uei  tlalli ,  in 
Nahuatl,  “great  land,”  a  general  term,  which  included  various  tribes  and  chieftan- 
cies  of  the  same  linguistic  stock,  one  entirely  diverse  from  those  of  the  neighboring 
Mangues  and  Nahuas,  toward  whom  they  were  unfriendly,  although  maintaining 
commercial  relations. 

The  province  of  Guarco  was  considered  by  both  the  natives  and  the  Spaniards  as 
one  of  the  most  favored  localities  in  the  country,  and  for  that  reason  was  selected  by 
the  Guetares,  and  later  by  the  whites,  as  the  site  of  their  principal  town.  It  was  here 
that  the  city  of  Costa  Rica  was  founded  in  1568.  The  name  is  a  corruption  of  the 
Nahuatl  Qualcan,  from  “qualli,”  good,  convenient,  with  the  locative  suffix  “can.” 
Qualcan  means,  therefore,  “good  place,”  or,  as  it  is  translated  in  Molina’s  Vocabulary, 
“a  well-sheltered  and  desirable  place,  ”  which  answers  well  to  the  valley  of  Cartago. 

Southeast  of  Chorotega  and  the  heights  of  Herradura,  and  south  of  the  Guetares, 
extending  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  between  the  rivers  Pirris  and  Grande  of  Terraba, 
was  the  province  of  the  Quepos,  of  which  the  Spanish  Government  formed  the  dis¬ 
trict  of  Quepo,  whose  extreme  limit  toward  the  southeast  was  the  old  Chiriqui  River. 

According  to  the  most  probable  conjectures,  the  Quepos  belonged  to  the  family 
of  the  Guetares  and  lived,  by  preference,  on  the  coasts.  They  were  also  enemies  of 
the  Mangues  and  the  Cotos  and  Borucas,  and  in  consequence  of  their  wars  with  them 
and  with  the  \Vliites,  and  with  the  burden  of  labors  laid  upon  them  by  the  latter, 
their  towns  disappeared  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  without  leaving  any 
positive  traces  which  will  enlighten  us  upon  their  origin. 

Adjoining  thfe  Quepos,  the  Cotos  or  Coctos  occupied  the  upper  valley  of  the  river 
Terraba,  formerly  known  as  the  Goto. 

These  formed  a  numerous  and  warlike  tribe,  skillful  in  both  offense  and  defense. 

They  are  not  known  in  Costa  Rica  by  this  name;  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Bo¬ 
rucas  are  their  descendants.  These  Borucas  occupied  the  region  about  Golfo  Dulce, 
formerly  the  gulf  of  Osa,  east  of  the  river  Terraba,  and  gave  their  name  Buricas, 
Burucas,  or  Bruncas  to  the  province  of  Borica,  discovered  by  the  Licentiate  Espinosa 
in  the  first  voyage  of  exploration  made  by  the  Spaniards  to  this  region  in  1519,  and 
also  to  Point  Burica,  the  extreme  southern  limit  of  Costa  Rica,  in  latitude  8°  north. 


84 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


The  province  of  Burica  extended  toward  the  east  to  the  Llanos  of  Chiriqui,  and 
formed  a  part  of  the  government  of  Quepo.  It  belongs  today  to  the  district  of  Punta 
Arenas. 

The  Terrabas,  who  have  given  their  name  to  the  river  formerly  called  the  Coto,  do 
not  belong  to  the  tribes  of  the  Pacific  Slope.  They  were  brought  to  the  location  there, 
which  they  now  occupy,  in  Aldea  or  Terraba,  partly  by  the  persuasion  of  the  mis¬ 
sionaries,  partly  by  force,  having  been  obliged  to  abandon  the  rough  mountains  to 
the  north  about  the  headwaters  of  the  Tilorio  or  Rio  de  la  Estrella,  the  Yurquin,  and 
the  Rovalo,  about  the  year  1697.  They  have  been  variously  called  Terbis,  Terrebes, 
Terrabas,  and  Tirribies,  but  there  are  no  differences  of  dialect  between  them  and 
their  relatives  to  the  north,  other  than  would  necessarily  take  place  in  any  tongue 
from  a  separation  of  this  length. 

At  the  time  of  the  Conquest,  therefore,  the  tribes  occupying  the  territory  of  Costa 
Rica  were  Nahuas,  Mangues,  Guetares,  Viceitas,  Terrabas,  Changuenes,  Guaymies, 
Quepos,  Cotos,  and  Borucas. 

...  It  is  almost  impossible  to  determine  the  ethnic  affinities  of  the  Guetares  as 
long  as  no  vocabularies  of  their  tongue  can  be  found,  though  such  were  certainly 
written  by  such  able  linguists  as  Fray  Pedro  de  Betanzos,  Fray  Lorenzo  de  Bienve- 
nida,  Fray  Juan  Babt.ista,  and  other  Franciscans,  who  founded  missionary  establish¬ 
ments  and  taught  the  natives  around  Cartago;  but  the  testimony  of  archaeology 
proves  that  if  they  were  not  related  to  the  Nahuas,  they  were  subject  to  their  influ¬ 
ence,  perhaps  through  the  active  commerce  they  had  with  the  Chorotegas  and  Nahuas 
about  the  gulf  of  J^icoya. 

.  .  .  As  to  the  Guaymies,  Terrabas,  Changuenes,  and  Borucas,  their  affinities  to 
the  tribes  to  the  east  of  them  are  well  marked,  and  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  they 
were  also  closely  related  to  the  natives  between  Paria  and  Darien,  and  even  with  the 
Chibchas  of  Colombia,  as  has  been  maintained  by  Brinton. 

Guatuso 

The  eastern  and  western  boundaries  of  the  Guatusan  area  on  the 
map  are  based  largely  on  inference,  rather  than  on  positive  evidence. 
That  the  tribe  occupied  the  valley  of  the  Rio  Frio  to  the  San  Juan 
river,  and  the  region  about  the  headwaters  of  the  former,  is  the 
general  consensus  of  the  authorities.  There  is  some  evidence  also 
that  they  frequently  wandered  down  the  San  Carlos  river,  and  Carl 
Sapper  (1  :  31)  speaks  of  a  small  body  on  a  branch  of  the  Sarapiqui. 
Gabb  (483)  states  merely  that  at  the  time  of  his  visit — 

They  occupy  a  part  of  the  broad  plains  north  and  east  of  the  high  volcanic  chain  of 
North-Western  Costa  Rica  and  south  of  the  great  lake  of  Nicaragua,  especially  about  the 
headwaters  of  the  Rio  Frio. 

Fernandez  (3:676)  says: 

The  lands  occupied  by  the  Guatusos  are  very  extensive,  level,  fertile,  and  inter¬ 
sected  by  navigable  rivers,  with  a  slight  incline  from  the  right  bank  of  the  San  Juan 
river  to  the  Central  Cordillera,  which  divides  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific. 

Bishop  Thiel  (2  :  12)  says  they  live  dispersed  in  the  skirts  of  the 
Cerro  Pelado,  of  the  Tenorio,  and  on  the  banks  of  the  affluents  of  the 
Rio  Frio,  principally  between  the  Pataste,  the  Muerte,  the  Cucaracha, 
and  the  Venado.  He  appears  to  have  succeeded  in  obtaining  a 
vocabulary  of  their  language,  judging  from  that  given  in  his  Apuntes 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  85 


Lexicograficos.  As  indicating  the  southern  boundary  may  be  cited 
the  statement  by  Gabb  (484)  that  the  town  of  San  Ramon  is  “not  far 
from  the  borders  of  the  Guatuso  country.”  Attention  is  directed 
likewise  to  what  is  said  of  this  tribe  by  Peralta  in  the  extract  from 
his  paper  given  above. 

As  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  List  of  Families  and  Tribes  on 
the  map,  the  writer  has  followed  the  philologists  in  placing  the 
Guatusan  dialect  in  the  Chibchan  family.  This  relation  appears  to 
be  borne  out  by  the  vocabularies,  though  not  to  a  very  marked 
extent. 

Guetare 


(Synonym.'  Huetare) 


Doctor  Brinton  (3  :  146)  at  first  associated  this  idiom  with  theChiapa- 
necan  linguistic  stock,  but  afterward  (4:  498)  decided  from  material 
which  had  come  into  his  possession  that  it  pertained  to  the  Talaman- 
can  linguistic  group.  While  it  is  very  probable  that  Doctor  Brinton 
is  correct  in  his  later  conclusion,  which  is  here  followed,  the  evidence 
he  presents  is  not  entirely  satisfactory.  This  consists  in  the  com¬ 
parison  of  very  brief  vocabularies,  as  follows : 


Guetare 

man 

pejelilli 

woman 

palacmk 

sun 

cagune 

moon 

furia 

fire 

yoco 

water 

dicre 

head 

sotacii 

eye 

scguebra 

ear 

secuque 

mouth 

scqueque 

nose 

seyiquete 

tongue 

scguecte 

tooth 

saka 

hand 

seyura 

foot 

ecuru 

house 

tu 

Other  Talamancan  dialects 
pejettille=\  ir. 
palacrak 
cagune 
tura 
yoco 
dicre 
sotacu 

segucbra,  or  wobra 

zgo-ku 

ko-kvou 

jik 

1  <kok-lu 
ka 
ura 

kru-kwe 

hu 


The  agreement  between  the  two  idioms,  as  shown  by  these  brief 
lists,  is  so  close  that  they  may  be  considered  as  one  and  the  same 
language.  In  other  words,  the  evidence  proves  too  much  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  Guetare  vocabulary,  which  was  obtained  by  Doctor 
Berendt,  was  marked  by  him  “Ancient  Talamanca,”  and  not 
Guetare.  Moreover,  this  was  obtained  about  forty-four  years  ago 
from  some  natives  residing  near  San  Jose  de  Costa  Rica,  but  not  a 
word,  it  seems,  was  said  in  regard  to  their  relation  to  the  Guetare 
tribe.  Doctor  Brinton  adds,  “It  is  called  Talamanca,  but  Mr.  Gabb, 


1  From  Gabb. 


86 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


who  saw  it,  pronounced  it  to  be  of  a  different  dialect.”  The  real 
evidence,  therefore,  is  limited  to  the  fact  that  the  vocabulary  was 
obtained  from  Indians  living  in  the  region  formerly  embraced  in  the 
Guetare  territory.  It  is  deemed  safest,  however,  to  include  the 
idiom  for  the  present  in  the  Talamancan  group. 

Although  it  is  difficult  at  this  late  day  to  mark  the  boundaries  of 
the  Guetare  territory  as  they  existed  at  the  time  of  the  Spanish  con¬ 
quest,  the  area  in  a  general  sense  is  readily  determined  from  historical 
and  other  data. 

Oviedo  (lib.  29,  cap.  21)  says — 

Los  Giietares  son  mucha  gente,  e  viven  enyima  de  las  sierras  del  puerto  de  La  Herra- 
dura,  e  se  extienden  por  la  costa  deste  golpho  [Nicoya]  al  Poniente  de  la  banda  del 
Norte  hasta  el  confin  de  los  Chorotegas. 

According  to  this  statement,  the  territory  of  the  tribe  reached  the 
Pacific  coast  and  extended  along  it  toward  the  northwest  to  Punta 
Arenas  or  Bio  Barranca,  the  limit,  as  stated  above,  of  the  southern 
extension  of  the  Orotina,  or  “ Chorotegas”  as  Oviedo  terms  them.  As 
the  tribe  extended  back  into  the  sierras  behind  Herradura  bay,  tlieir 
territory  must  have  embraced  the  Sierras  de  Turrubales,  as  stated 
by  Fernandez  (I:  34,  note/). 

Peralta  (1:768-769)  mentions  several  provinces  which,  he  says, 
were  peopled  by  the  Indians  of  this  tribe,  as  follows : 

Garabito,  Catapa,  Tice,  and  Boto  (Voto),  comprehending  the  territory  south  of 
Lake  Nicaragua  and  San  Juan  river  to  its  confluence  with  the  Rio  Sarapiqui  (south) 
to  the  mountains  of  Barba.  Including  the  valley  of  Ooyoche  between  the  rivers 
Barranca  and  Grande;  Abra  (or  Curriravo,  Curridabat)  and  Tayopan;  Accerri  and 
Pacaca.  Guarco,  between  the  rivers  Taras  and  Toyogres.  Turriarba  (or  Turrialba) 
and  Cooc  (or  Cot).  The  aborigines  of  these  provinces  were  Guetares. 

This  includes  the  Boto,  or  Voto,  Indians  in  the  Guetare  group,  who, 
Peralta  says  (1:  401),  were  situated  on  the  right  margin  of  the  Desa- 
guadero  (San  Juan)  between  the  Frio,  Pocosol,  and  Sarapiqui  rivers. 
Adding  the  province  of  Suerre,  as  he  does  in  the  extract  given  above, 
would  make  the  San  Juan  river  from  its  mouth  up  to  the  Bio  Frio  the 
northern  boundary  of  the  Guetare  territory.  As  the  mountains  of 
Barba  are  in  the  district  of  Heredia  and  those  of  Turrialba  are  along 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  district  of  Cartago,  this  description 
applies  to  a  wide  strip  extending  from  the  San  Juan  river  on  the 
north  and  the  Caribbean  sea  on  the  northeast,  to  the  Pacific  ocean 
on  the  south,  the  coast  line  on  the  south  reaching  from  Barranca 
river  at  the  northwest  probably  to,  or  nearly  to,  the  Bio  Grande  de 
Terraba  on  the  southeast. 

Fernandez  (1:587),  quoting  from  Licenciado  Cavallon,  seems  to 
include  the  district  of  Cartago  in  the  Guetare  territory.  In  regard 
to  the  seat  of  the  Voto  tribe  or  subtribe,  he  says  (1 :  64,  note  e) : 

Boto  or  Voto  includes  the  Indians  who  occupied  the  southern  cordillera  of  Costa 
Rica  from  the  river  of  Barva  up  to  the  Rio  de  Orosf,  called  Sierra  de  Tilaran.  The 
name  is  preserved  in  that  of  the  Volcano  de  los  Votos  or  detPuas. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  87 

The  Sierra  de  Tilaran,  as  marked  on  the  map  of  Costa  Rica,  extends 
along  the  extreme  northwestern  border  of  the  district  of  Alajuela, 
while  the  volcano  of  Puas  (or  Poas)  is  on  the  extreme  eastern  border, 
where  it  joins  the  district  of  Heredia.  That  the  Sierra  de  Tilaran 
formed  the  extreme  southern  boundary  of  the  Guatusan  territory  is 
certain.  In  fact,  one  portion  of  it  is  named  the  Cerro  de  los 
Guatusos.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  the  range  to  which  Fernandez 
refers  is  that  which  extends  east  and  west  across  Heredia  and  the 
southeastern  portion  of  Alajuela;  but  what  stream  is  referred  to  by 
the  name  “Barva”  is  uncertain  (possibly  it  should  be  “Brava,” 
though  this  does  not  solve  the  difficulty  with  the  limited  data  at 
hand) . 

The  statement  made  by  Peralta  in  the  excerpt  from  his  pen  on 
page  83  agrees  with  his  conclusion,  as  stated  above.  The  assertion 
that  “to  the  east  of  the  Sarapiqui,  and  from  the  mouths  of  the  San 
Juan  on  the  Atlantic  to  the  mouth  of  the  river  Matina,  was  the 
important  province  of  Suerre,  belonging  to  the  Guetars,”  is  open  to 
question,  however,  as  there  is  no  means  of  comparing  the  languages. 
Nevertheless,  the  writer  has  followed  Peralta  in  the  accompanying 
map. 

Voto 

C Synonym :  Bo  to) 

According  to  all  the  evidence  remaining  on  record,  this  tribe  occu¬ 
pied  the  country  south  of  the  Rio  San  Juan  from  the  river  San  Carlos 
to  the  Sarapiqui,  their  territory  extending  southward  to,  and  proba- 
bly  across,  the  district  of  Heredia  and  the  southern  part  of  Alajuela. 

The  writer  has  failed  to  find  the  data  on  which  Peralta  and 
others  base  the  conclusion  that  the  people  of  this  tribe  were  con¬ 
nected  with  the  Guetare.  Carl  Sapper  (1:  31)  speaks  of  them  as  a 
distinct  tribe,  although  not  alluding  to  their  ethnic  relations.  As  no 
vocabulary,  not  even  a  few  words  of  their  language,  has  been  pre¬ 
served,  so  far  as  known,  its  affinities  can  be  only  guessed  at  or  inferred 
from  other  data.  Is  it  not  possible  that  they  were  the  Rama,  part  of 
whom  Bell  mistook  for  the  Guatuso.  (See  p.  80.)  If  his  statement  was 
based  on  some  tradition,  the  supposition  may  not  be  wholly  gratui¬ 
tous;  otherwise  it  is.  On  the  whole  it  is  considered  best  for  the  pres¬ 
ent  to  follow  here  the  Costa  Rican  authorities,  who  are  on  the  ground 
and  familiar  with  the  history  of  their  country  so  far  as  recorded; 
hence  the  Voto  are  assigned  to  the  Guetare  territory,  although  not 
referred  to  on  the  map. 

Suerre  (?) 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  territory  included  under  this  name 
should  be  considered  a  separate  linguistic  area.  In  the  extract 


88 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


given  above  (p.  83)  from  Peralta’s  paper  on  the  ethnography  of 
Costa  Rica,  and  in  his  work  heretofore  cited  (1:  769,  note  1),  he 
says : 

To  the  east  of  the  Sarapiqui,  and  from  the  mouths  of  the  San  Juan  on  the  Atlantic 
to  the  mouth  of  the  river  Matina,  was  the  important  province  of  Suerre,  belonging 
to  the  Guetars,  who  occupied  the  ground  to  Turrialba  and  Atirro,  in  the  valleys  of 
the  Reventazon  and  the  river  Suerre  or  Pacuar. 

The  chief  evidence  of  the  relation  of  the  people  of  this  province 
to  the  Guetare  is  found  in  the  letter  of  Juan  Vasquez  de  Coronado 
(December  11,  1562,  given  by  Peralta,  1:  760-765)  where,  referring 
to  the  expedition  of  Cavallon  and  the  submission  of  the  provinces  of 
the  Guetare,  he  mentions  the  provinces  of  Suerre  and  Turucaca,  the 
former  on  the  Sea  of  the  North  and  the  latter  on  the  Sea  of  the 
South  (764). 

The  name  is  not  referred  to  on  the  accompanying  map. 

• 

Quepo(  ?) 

The  same  uncertainty  as  to  linguistic  distinction  exists  in  regard 
to  the  people  occupying  the  section  known  under  this  name  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Suerre. 

Peralta  (1:  769,  note  2)  says  Quepo  was  “a  province  south  of  the 
Cordillera  de  la  Candelaria,  upon  the  Pacific  Ocean,  at  9°  30'  north 
latitude.”  In  the  extract  from  his  paper,  given  above,  he  locates 
them  southeast  of  Chorotega  and  the  heights  of  Herradura,  and 
south  of  the  Guetare,  extending  to  the  Pacific  ocean  between  the 
rivers  Pirris  and  Grande  of  Terr  aba.  He  adds  further  that,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  most  probable  conjectures,  the  Quepo  belonged  to  the 
family  of  the  Guetare,  and  that  they  were  the  enemies  of  the  Coto 
and  the  Boruca. 

These  statements,  when  closely  compared  with  those  of  the  same 
author  in  what  precedes,  show  some  confusion;  moreover,  for  rea¬ 
sons  which  will  appear  further  on,  the  writer  is  not  prepared  to 
accept  the  statement  that  the  Guetare  (the  Quepo  being  included) 
extended  southeast  to  the  Rio  Grande  de  la  Terraba,  as  the  valley 
of  this  river,  in  part  at  least,  was  occupied  by  the  Terraba  and  the 
Boruca.  It  is  not  indicated  on  the  map. 

Talamanca 

It  has  been  found  most  convenient  for  present  purposes,  and  not 
inconsistent  with  correct  classification,  to  retain  the  name  Tala¬ 
manca  for  that  group  of  closely  allied  dialects  spoken  by  certain 
tribes  of  Indians  inhabiting  both  sides  of  the  cordillera  in  eastern 
and  southeastern  Costa  Rica.  These  dialects,  which  belong  to  the 
Cliibclian  family,  are  known  by  the  following  names:  Boruca,  Bribri, 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  89 

Cabecar,  Estrella,  Terraba,  Tirribi,  and  Tucurric;  some  others  are 
mentioned  which  are  now  extinct.  This  course  has  been  adopted 
for  present  purposes,  for  the  reason  that,  while  it  is  possible  to  out¬ 
line  with  approximate  correctness  the  territory  of  the  group,  the  data 
do  not  justify  the  attempt  to  mark  the  areas  of  the  separate  dialects. 

It  is  necessary  to  state  here  that  on  the  present  map  the  south¬ 
eastern  boundary  of  Costa  Rica,  that  between  this  republic  and 
Panama,  is  not  as  given  on  most  maps,  but  as  defined  by  the  Presi¬ 
dent  of  France,  who  was  appointed  arbiter  by  the  two  republics  of 
the  dispute  concerning  this  boundary.  By  this  decision  a  consider¬ 
able  strip  of  southeastern  Costa  Rica  was  awarded  to  Colombia.  As 
will  be  seen,  part  of  the  Talamancan  territory  falls  within  this  strip. 
It  should  be  stated  further  that  Talamanca  is  here  used  as  a  generic 
term  for  the  group  and  not  given  to  any  one  dialect.  The  name  has 
been  very  loosely  applied;  for  instance  Fernandez  (1:  617)  says  the 
“naciones”  of  the  Talamanca  are  Cabecar,  Viceite,  Terraba,  Toxare, 
Changuene,  Zegua,  Torasque,  and  Guaymie,  thus  including  tribes  of 
two  different  stocks — Chibchan  and  Nahuatlan  (Zegua).  It  is  some¬ 
what  strange  that  a  citizen  of  the  country  should  have  made  this 
mistake  in  1889,  especially  as  Dr.  Max  Uhle  in  1888  (470)  gave 
correctly,  so  far  as  his  reference  extends,  the  Bribri,  Cabecar,  Estrella, 
Tiribi,  and  Tucurrique.  Moreover,  B.  A.  Thiel  in  his  Apuntos  Lexi- 
cograficos  de  las  Lenguas,  to  which  Fernandez  refers,  gives  as  the 
dialects  of  the  Talamanca  or  Viceite,  Bribri,  Cabecar,  Estrella,  and 
Chirripo.  He  mentions  Boruca  and  Terraba  separately.  Chirripo  is 
considered  by  some  authorities  merely  a  subdialect  of  Cabecar;  by 
others,  Tariaca  under  another  name,  spoken  by  the  people  of  a 
particular  village  called  Chirripo  and  the  immediately  surrounding 
region.  Sapper  (1:  31)  says: 

The  language  of  Tucurrique  or  Tucurriqui,  a  village  situated  on  the  banks  of  the 
Rio  Reventazon  differs  only  in  a  few  non-essential  dialectic  details  from  the  language 
of  the  Indians  living  on  the  banks  of  the  Rio  Chirripo,  Rio  Estrella,  Coen  and  the  upper 
Teliri,  which  Pittier  names  Cabecara  after  their  chief  dwelling  place,  S.  Jose  Cabecar. 

An  examination  of  the  vocabularies  given  by  Thiel  tends  to  confirm 
this  conclusion.  Pittier  and  Gagini  (7)  consider  three  of  these  dia¬ 
lects  the  principal  ones — Bribri,  to  which  are  referred  Cabecar,  Chir¬ 
ripo,  Estrella  and  Tucurric;  Terraba,  which  is  considered  identical 
with  Tirribi;  and  Boruca,  which  forms  the  third  division. 

According  to  Peralta’s  paper  quoted  above  (p.  83),  the  south¬ 
eastern  boundary  of  the  Guetare  territory,  where  it  joined  the  Tala¬ 
mancan  area,  extended  from  the  mouth  of  the  Rio  Matina  westward 
to  Terrialba  on  the  north  line  of  Cartago  district.  In  his  map  (Mit- 
teilungen,  1901)  Sapper  locates  a  small  colony  of  Cabecar  in  the 
northern  part  of  this  district,  on  the  extreme  headwaters  of  the  Re¬ 
ventazon  river.  From  this  it  appears  that  the  northern  boundary 

8347°— Bull.  44—11 - 7 


90 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


of  the  Talamancan  area  ran  slightly  south  of  west  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Rio  Matina,  nearly  or  quite  to  the  middle  of  the  northern  boun¬ 
dary  of  Cartago  district,  where  it  turned  south. 

Notwithstanding  the  statement  by  Peralta  given  above,  that  the 
Guetare  territory  (including  that  of  the  Quepo)  extended  southeast 
to  the  Rio  Grande  Terraba,  it  is  shown  by  Sapper’s  map  that  the 
Terraba  and  the  Brunca  (or  Boruca)  tribes  are  located,  even  at  the 
present  day,  in  the  valley  of  this  river,  chiefly  on  the  west  side.  The 
name  of  the  river  (Terraba)  is  also  significant.  It  has  been  decided 
best,  therefore,  to  include  this  river,  or  at  least  all  except  its  head¬ 
waters,  in  the  Talamancan  territory.  The  Pacific  ocean  forms  the 
southern  boundary.  It  is  apparent  from  Sapper’s  map  that  the 
eastern  limit  on  the  Pacific  side  can  be  but  slightly  east,  if  east  at  all, 
of  Punta  Boruca,  as  immediately  to  the  east  of  it  are  encountered 
the  Doraskean  element.  In  the  extract  given  Peralta  evidently 
includes  the  Boruca  peninsula  in  Doraskean  territory.  The  eastern 
boundary  of  the  Talamancan  territory  on  the  Pacific  slope  falls 
between  the  Boruca  peninsula  and  the  Rio  Chiriqui  Viejo. 

The  eastern  boundary  of  the  Talamancan  territory,  on  the  Atlantic 
slope,  can  not  be  exactly  determined.  That  this  territory  did  not 
include  the  Rio  Rovalo,  which  falls  into  the  western  side  of  Chiriqui 
lagoon,  seems  certain;  and  that  the  Doraskean  territory  included 
some  of  the  upper  tributaries  of  the  Telorio  also  seems  certain. 
Pinart  (2:1)  says  the  Doraskean  tribes  were  situated  back  of  the 
Chiriqui  lagoon,  and  from  the  name  is  inclined  to  believe  their  ter¬ 
ritory  formerly  extended  north  to  the  Changuinaula  river,  Changuina 
being  a  name  sometimes  applied  to  them.  This  condition  of  things,  if 
correctly  stated,  must  have  prevailed,  however,  before  the  incoming 
of  the  Mexican  colony.  The  line  represented  on  the  accompanying 
map  does  not  extend  quite  so  far  north. 

Tariaca(f). — Starting  with  that  part  of  the  territory  belonging  to 
the  Atlantic  slope  and  going  south,  the  first  tribe  of  which  there  is  any 
notice  is  the  Tariaca.  This  tribe  is  considered  by  Pittier  (41)  identical 
with  the  Cliirripo  of  Thiel.  The  region  occupied  seems  to  have 
extended  along  the  coast  from  the  Rio  Matina  well  down  toward  the 
Rio  Teliri.  Unless  they  were  identical  with  the  Chirripo  the  tribe  is 
extinct  and  nothing  is  known  of  their  language;  but  accepting  Pit- 
tier’s  suggestion  of  identity  with  the  Chirripo,  as  the  writer  is 
inclined  to  do,  there  is  evidence  in  Thiel’s  vocabulary  (1)  that  they 
belonged  to  the  Talamancan  group.  Although  Sapper  (1 :  32)  appears 
to  draw  his  information  regarding  the  Tariaca  from  Pittier,  he  evi¬ 
dently  distinguishes  them  from  the  Chirripo,  as  he  says: 

North  of  the  district  of  the  Chirripo  and  Bribri  Indians  along  the  Atlantic,  coast  are  to 
be  found  the  former  dwelling  places  of  the  Tariaca  (taken  from  Pittier)  of  which  tribe 
nothing  has  been  preserved  to  the  present  time. 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  91 

It  is  probable  that  a  remnant  fleeing  from  Spanish  attacks  found  refuge 
in  the  sierras,  where  from  a  local  name  they  became  known  as  Chirripo. 

Cabecar.— Although  in  the  statement  quoted  above  Sapper  implies 
that  the  Tariacan  territory  lay  immediately  north  of  and  adjoining 
that  of  the  Bribri  Indians,  in  his  map  he  places  the  Cabecar  between 
the  two  tribes;  that  is  to  say,  he  locates  them  north  of  the  Bribri 
territory.  His  map  appears  to  be  correct,  as  Gabb  (487)  says,  “The 
Cabecars  occupy  the  country  from  the  frontiers  of  civilization  to  the 
western  [left]  side  of  the  Coen  branch  of  the  Tiliri  or  Sicsola  river.” 
Pittier  says  merely  that  they  occupy  the  valleys  of  the  upper  Coen, 
the  middle  branch  of  the  Teliri  (Teriri,  or  Sicsola). 

Bribri. — According  to  Gabb  (487)  the  Bribri  occupied  the  region 
watered  bv  the  eastern  branches  of  the  Teliri,  and  also  that  about  the 
mouths  of  this  river;  in  other  words,  the  region  between  the  Coen  on 
the  west  and  the  Changuinaula  on  the  east. 

Tirribi. — According  to  Gabb  (487)  and  other  authorities  the  Indians 
speaking  this  dialect  occupied  the  region  watered  by  the  Rio  Tilorio 
or  upper  Changuinaula. 

Tucurric  ( Cuqueri ). — Judging  by.  the  statements  of  Thiel  (1:174), 
the  early  documents  quoted  by  Fernandez  (1:371,  610),  and  Gabb 
(486),  the  Indians  speaking  this  dialect  were  located  in  the  central 
part  of  what  is  now  known  as  the  Cartago  district,  on  the  headwaters 
of  the  Revantazon  river. 

Estrella. — Thiel  gives  a  vocabulary  of  this  idiom  in  his  “Apuntes,” 
but  unfortunately  omits  to  state  where  it  was  obtained.  It  is  under¬ 
stood  that  the  Indians  speaking  it  lived  in  the  valley  of  Estrella  river, 
a  stream  entering  the  sea  a  short  distance  south  of  Limon,  in  the  terri¬ 
tory  assigned  to  the  Tariaca  (or  Chirripo).  These  appear  to  be  the 
people  spoken  of  by  Gabb  (492),  who  says: 

On  the  North  or  Estrella  river,  and  on  the  Chiripo,  there  are  a  few  more  Cabecars 
who  have  little  communication  with  the  headquarters  of  the  tribe,  but  who  are  in  the 
habit  of  going  out  to  Limon  or  Matina  for  what  little  trade  they  require. 

As  indicated  by  Thiel’s  vocabulary,  the  language  is  substantially 
identical  with  the  Chirripo ;  in  fact,  no  good  reason  appears  for  retain¬ 
ing  the  name  as  that  of  a  different  dialect. 

Boruca  (or  Brunca). — Passing  over  the  dividing  range  to  the  Pacific 
slope,  we  reach  the  territory  where  the  other  dialects  of  the  Talaman- 
can  linguistic  group  were  spoken.  The  chief  one  of  these  was  Boruca, 
or  Brunca.  According  to  Sapper’s  map,  those  who  still  speak  the 
language  live  in  close  relation  with  the  Terraba,  in  the  middle  and 
lower  parts  of  the  valley  of  the  Rio  Grande  de  Terraba.  Judging  by 
local  names  and  other  data,  it  is  probable  that  the  territory  of  the 
Boruca  in  their  palmy  days  extended  eastward  to  and  included  the 
peninsula  of  Burica. 

Terraba. — Terraba  is  at  most  merely  a  subdialect  of  the  Tirribi  and 
probably  should  not  be  considered  as  distinct  therefrom.  Gabb  (487) 


92 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


says  “the  Terrabas  are  tribally  identical  with  the  Tiribis.”  A  tradi¬ 
tion,  which  seems  well  authenticated,  says  that  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  through  the  influence  of  the  Franciscan  friars,  a  portion  of 
the  Tirribi  was  persuaded  to  break  away  and  pass  over  to  the  Pacific 
slope.  (Sapper  and  Gabb.) 

Coto.— So  far  as  known,  no  vocabulary  of  this  dialect  has  been  pre¬ 
served;  in  fact,  it  is  not  positively  known  that  there  was  such  a 
dialect.  As  there  is  positive  evidence,  however,  that  there  was  a 
tribe  known  by  this  name  which  cannot  be  identified  with  any  of 
those  mentioned,  one  is  justified  in  using  the  name  as  that  of  a  dis¬ 
tinct  dialect  or  language.  In  the  paper  heretofore  quoted  (p.  83) 
Peralta  says  they  occupied  the  upper  valley  of  the  Rio  Terraba,  for¬ 
merly  known  as  Coto  river.  He  thinks  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  Boruca  are  their  descendants. 

This  completes  the  list  of  the  Talamancan  dialects,  none  of  which 
have  been  located  on  the  map,  but  before  passing  to  another  group 
the  following  from  Pittier’s  “Nombres  Geograficos”  is  given  in  regard 
to  the  Bribri  tribe,  as  throwing  light  on  the  tribal  distinctions  of 
the  group. 

The  tribe  was  divided  into  two  groups — the  Tubor-uak,  and  the 
Kork-uak,  or  Djbar-uak.  Marriage  between  persons  of  the  same 
group  or  division  was  forbidden.  Children  belonged  to  the  mother’s 
clan.  The  clans  or  subdivisions  of  the  groups  were  as  follows: 


tubor-uak  1 


kork-uak 


suritz-uak 

deer  clan 

dutz-uak 

bird  clan 

bokir-uak 

dojk-uak 

sark-uak 

monkey  clan 

dogdi-uak 

(river  name) 

orori-uak 

falls  of  the  Arari  river  clan 

kugdi-uak 

falls  of  the  Uren  river  clan 

tkiut-uak 

house-site  clan 

duri-uak 

broken  clan 

arau-uak 

ara ,  thunderclap;  u,  house 

urij-uak 

ant-eating  bear. 

djbar-uak 

diu-uak 

etc.  (to  15  in 

number) 

Gabb  (487)  states  that  there  is  no  authority  for  the  use  of  the  name 
Beceita,  or  Veceita,  frequently  applied  as  a  tribal  name,  and  that  it 
is  unknown  to  the  Indians  of  Costa  Rica. 


Sigua 


(Synonyms:  Xicagua,  Chicagua,  Chichagua,  Segua,  Shelaba  (Gabb, 

487),  Mexicanos  (Fernandez,  1:  107) 

That  there  was  a  Mexican  or  Nahuatlan  colony  on  the  northern 
coast  of  Costa  Rica  in  the  neighborhood  of  Chiriqui  lagoon  has  been 


1  Uak  signifies  “pueblo”  or  “clan.” 


THOMAS]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  93 

lately  denied,  but  it  is  too  clearly  proven  by  historical  evidence  to 
admit  of  doubt.  In  the  paper  heretofore  quoted  Peralta  says: 

On  the  Bay  del  Almirante  [Chiriqui]  to  Point  Sorobeta  or  Terbi  there  was  the 
Chichimec  colony,  already  referred  to,  whose  cacique  Iztolin  conversed  in  the  Mexi¬ 
can  language  with  Juan  Vasquez  de  Coronado  in  1564. 

A  previous  statement  in  the  same  paper  is  as  follows: 

A  Mexican  colony  also  existed  in  the  valley  of  Telorio  near  the  Bay  del  Almirante, 
and  inhabited  the  island  of  Tojar,  or  Zorobaro  (now  of  Columbus),  and  the  towns  of 
Chicaua,  Moyaua,  Quequexque,  and  Corotapa,  on  the  mainland. 

The  foregoing  information  enables  us  to  locate  on  the  map  with 
approximate  correctness  the  territory  of  this  Nahuatlan  colony, 
which  marks  the  southern  limit  of  this  conquering  race. 

Doraskean  Tribes  1 

According  to  all  the  authorities,  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  Tala- 
mancan  area  forms  the  western  boundary  of  the  Doraskean  area. 
This  area  was  in  the  form  of  a  belt  extending  across  this  narrow 
part  of  the  continent  from  the  Chiriqui  lagoon  to  the  Pacific  Ocean. 
In  the  extract  from  his  paper  heretofore  given  (p.  83)  Peralta  states 
that  the  “Changuenes,”  who  belonged  to  this  group — 

Occupied  the  forests  about  the  headwaters  of  the  Rio  Ravalo.  The  Doraces,  south 
of  the  Laguna  of  Chiriqui,  and  at  the  foot  of  the  Cordillera  adjoined  in  the  valley  of 
the  river  Cricamola  or  Guay  mi  with  the  warlike  nation  of  the  latter  name. 

Pinart  (2:1)  says  the  “  Dorasque-Changuina  ”  occupied  the  region 
about  the  volcano  of  Chiriqui,  or  Enema,  and  the  high  sierras  of 
Chiriqui  and  Talamanca,  and  that  they  adjoined  the  “naciones”  of 
the  Talamanca,  extending  northward  to  the  Chiriqui  lagoon.  Sapper 
(l:map)  shows  them  in  the  south  near  David  bay  and  also  in  the 
sierras  midway  between  that  bay  and  Chiriqui.  lagoon.  Except  in 
the  case  of  the  two  groups  placed  on  his  map,  one  of  which  at 
least  he  seems  to  have  visited,  the  latter  author  relies  chiefly  on 
Pinart’ s  statement.  In  addition  to  the  statement  above  referred 
to,  Pinart  speaks  of  settlements  at  Bugava,  which  is  near  the  Pacific 
coast  at  the  Bay  of  David,  and  at  Gualaca,  which  is  in  the  inte¬ 
rior  about  midway  toward  Chiriqui  lagoon,  around  which  Sapper 
locates  his  interior  settlement.  He  mentions  another  group  on  the 
headwaters  of  the  Changuinaula;  others  are  mentioned  at  Calderas 
and  Potrero,  all  of  which,  except  those  on  the  Changuinaula,  he 
visited.  He  indicates  that  the  former  chief  habitat  of  the  ‘  ‘  Dorasque- 
Changuina”  was  on  the  Atlantic  slope,  but  that  they  were  transferred 
by  the  missionaries  in  the  eighteenth  century  to  the  Pacific  slope. 

GJialiva. — All  ascertained  in  regard  to  this  dialect  is  that  it  was 
spoken,  or  perhaps  more  correctly  supposed  to  be  or  to  have  been 


1  On  account  of  the  comparatively  small  size  of  the  map  of  the  region  now  entered  in  the  progress  south¬ 
ward  and  the  lack  of  data  adequate  for  marking  correctly  the  tribal  areas,  only  the  territory  occupied 
by  the  group  or  subfamily  is  outlined. 


94 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


spoken,  by  Indians  living  in  the  sierras  about  the  headwaters  of  the 
Changuinaula.  If  the  supposition  that  they  speak  a  Doraskean  dia¬ 
lect  be  correct,  the  fact  tends  to  confirm  Pinart’ s  suggestion  that 
the  Changuina  formerly  occupied  the  valley  of  the  Changuinaula, 
the  river  receiving  its  name,  as  Pittier  (9)  also  says,  from  the 
Indians.  The  latter  author,  however,  asserts  that  it  is  a  Mosquito 
name. 

Changuina. — All  that  is  known  in  regard  to  the  Indians  speaking 
this  dialect  is  that  Pinart  obtained  his  vocabulary  from  some  three 
or  four  Changuina  Indians  living  at  Bugava  on  the  Pacific  side. 
Gabb  (4S7)  says  it  was  reported  to  him  that  a  part  of  the  tribe  still 
lived  on  the  headwaters  of  the  Changuinaula,  but  that  “their  very 
existence  is  known  only  by  vague  reports  of  their  savage  neighbors.” 
It  is  possible  that  these  were  not  Changuina  but  Talamanca  Indians, 
otherwise  they  must  be  identified  with  the  Chaliva. 

Chumula. — Nothing  is  known  in  regard  to  this  dialect  except  that 
information  respecting  it  was  obtained  by  Pinart  from  Indians  living 
at  Caldera  and  Potrero  in  the  interior. 

Dorask  (proper). — The  last  Indian  of  this  tribe  died  in  1882 
(Pinart  2:2).  The  vocabulary  given  by  this  author  was  taken  from 
a  manuscript  of  Padre  Bias  Jose  Franco,  obtained  at  Gualaca  in  the 
interior.  Dorask  (or  Doracho,  as  sometimes  written)  does  not  appear 
to  be  a  name  mentioned  by  the  early  authors;  at  least  Bancroft, 
who  certainly  made  a  careful  examination  of  their  writings  (be  our 
opinion  of  his  conclusions  what  it  may),  says  (hi,  794),  “The  Tules, 
Dariens,  Cholos,  Dorachos,  Savanerics,  Cunas,  and  Bayamos  are  new 
names  not  mentioned  by  any  of  the  older  writers.”  What  particular 
section  the  Dorask  proper  originally  occupied  is  therefore  unknown. 

Gualaca. — Knowledge  of  this  dialect  rests  on  precisely  the  same 
evidence  as  that  regarding  the  Dorask  proper,  namely,  the  vocabu¬ 
lary  of  Padre  Bias  Jose  Franco  as  given  by  Pinart  (2).  It  was 
obtained  at  the  same  place — Gualaca  in  the  interior,  where  Sapper 
locates  his  interior  group. 

Teluskie{?) — This  is  given  by  Brin  ton  (3  :  175)  as  one  of  the  dia¬ 
lects  of  his  Changuina  stock — here  the  Doraskean  group.  He  gives 
as  the  locality,  “near  Rio  Puan,”  a  branch  of  Rio  Tclorio.  The 
writer  has  been  unable  to  find  the  authority  on  which  this  habitat 
is  given,  though  he  has  access  to  all  the  works  to  which  Bancroft 
refers  in  this  connection.  Pinart  (5:118)  merely  mentions  the  name 
without  particulars,  nor  is  any  vocabulary  available.  Possibly 
Teluskie  is  only  another  name  for  Chaliva. 

Guaymie 

This  name  is  here  used  as  employed  by  Pinart  and  Adam,  that  is, 
rather  as  designating  a  group,  or  subfamily,  including  several  dialects, 
than  as  the  name  of  a  language.  According  to  Pinart  (3:2)  there 


Thomas]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  95 

were  three  principal  dialects:  The  Move-Valiente,  called  also  the 
Norteno  by  the  Spaniards;  the  Murire-Bukueta,  called  also  the 
Sabanero  by  the  Spaniards;  and  the  Muoi.  Lucien  Adam,  however, 
counts  six  dialects,  which  he  arranges  in  two  groups,  thus:  1,  Muoi, 
Murire,  and  Sabanero;  2,  Valiente,  Guaymie,  and  Norteno. 

The  latter  arrangement  appears  to  be  the  correct  one  and  that 
which  Pinart  has  in  reality  followed  in  his  vocabularies,  notwith¬ 
standing  his  preliminary  statement. 

According  to  Pinart  (3:  preface),  the  group  occupied  at  the  time 
of  the  Conquest  that  part  of  the  Panama  district  extending  on  the 
north  from  Chiriqui  lagoon  to  Chagres  river,  and  on  the  south,  or 
Pacific  side,  from  Chorrera  to  the  Rio  Fonseca;  the  Pearl  and  other 
islands  of  the  Gulf  of  Panama,  and  Cebaco,  Coiba,  Jicaron,  and  other 
islands  in  the  vicinity  of  Chiriqui  lagoon.  Peralta  says  in  the  paper 
heretofore  quoted  (p.  83)  that  “the  Guaymies  occupied  the  coast 
and  the  interior  lands  situated  between  the  rivers  Guavmi  and 
Conception,  of  Veragua.”  According  to  Pinart  (3:2)  these  dialects 
appear  to  be  spoken  at  present  only  in  the  plains  and  sierras  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  eastern  end  of  Chiriqui  lagoon,  in  the  Valley 
Miranda  (or  Guaymie),  and  “en  las  sierras  del  mineral  de  Veraguas.” 
He  gives,  however,  at  the  end  of  his  part  2,  a  list  of  the  names  of 
places,  rivers,  etc. — 

Pertaining  to  the  dialects  of  the  Guaymie  language,  in  the  departments  of  Panama, 
Colon,  Code,  Veraguas,  Los  Santos  and  Chiriqui,  and  also  in  the  comarcas  of  Balboa 
and  Bocas-del-Toro. 

The  above  territory  extends  to  the  Chagres  river. 

Sapper  (1)  very  wisely  has  attempted  to  indicate  on  his  map  only 
the  area  of  the  Guaymie  in  the  group  sense.  Even  this  is  not 
marked  on  the  present  map,  being  included  in  the  Doraskean  area. 

The  linguistic  material  collected  by  Pinart  has  enabled  philologists 
to  assign  these  dialects  to  the  Chibchan  family  with  reasonable  cer¬ 
tainty.  Adam  is  here  followed  in  counting  six  dialects,  and  Pinart 
in  fact  gives  six  in  his  vocabularies. 

CUNA 

This  language,  which  shows  no  clear  affinity  with  any  other  lan¬ 
guage,  in  spite  of  certain  leanings  toward  Chibchan,  constitutes 
a  stock  in  itself,  to  which  the  name  Cunan  is  applied.  Pinart  was 
inclined  to  connect  it  with  the  Caribbean  group,  but  this  sugges¬ 
tion  has  not  been  accepted  by  philologists  generally.  The  Cuna 
have  been  mentioned  under  various  names,  as  Mandinga,  Darien  Indi¬ 
ans,  Chucunaque,  Cunacuna,  Bayano,  Tule,  Yule,  San  Bias  Indians, 
etc.,  and  the  old  Spanish  name  Cueva  also  refers  to  them. 

According  to  Pinart  (1  :  preface)  the  boundaries  of  the  Cunan 
territory  at  the  time  of  the  Conquest  were  as  follows:  On  the  west  a 


96 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


[bull.  44 


line  running  from  the  Rio  Chagres  on  the  north  coast  to  Chorrera 
on  the  Pacific  coast;  on  the  east  and  south  it  was  separated  from  the 
Choco  territory  by  the  Rio  Cacarica,  the  “sierra  del  Espiritu  Santo,” 
and  the  Rio  Sambu.  As  the  lines  run  from  coast  to  coast,  the  region 
is  easily  indicated. 

With  Cuna  end  the  languages  of  isthmian  America  on  the  south,  the 
next  language  (Choco)  being  included  geographically  in  the  conti¬ 
nent  of  South  America. 

ETHNIC  DIVIDING  LINE  BETWEEN  NORTH  AMERICA  AND 

SOUTH  AMERICA 

It  has  long  been  conceded  that  the  linguistic  element  (if  it  may  be 
termed  so)  of  South  America,  at  the  time  of  the  Spanish  Conquest, 
extended  into  the  southern  sections  of  Central  America.  Brinton  says 
(3:164): 

The  mountain  chain  which  separates  Nicaragua  from  Costa  Rica,  and  the  headwaters 
of  the  Rio  Frio  from  those  of  the  more  southern  and  eastern  streams,  is  the  ethnographic 
boundary  of  North  America.  Beyond  it  [going  south]  we  come  upon  tribes  whose 
linguistic  affinities  point  towards  the  southern  continent.  Such  are  the  Talamancas, 
Guaymies,  Valientes,  and  others. 

So  far  as  the  present  writer  is  aware,  however,  Sapper  (1:48)  is  the 
first  to  lay  down  definitely  this  dividing  line  on  a  map.  Beginning 
at  the  extreme  northwestern  corner  of  Honduras,  where  it  meets  the 
bay,  it  runs  thence  southeast  almost  in  a  direct  line  to  the  eastern 
end  of  Lake  Nicaragua;  and  thence  in  nearly  the  same  direction  to 
the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Dulce  on  the  southern  coast  of  Costa 
Rica.  This  demarcation,  allowing  the  following  modification,  is 
accepted:  Carry  the  line  from  the  east  end,  or  near  the  east  end, 
of  Lake  Nicaragua  almost  directly  south  to  the  mouth  of  the  Gulf  of 
Nicoya,  the  tribes  east  of  this  line — the  Jicaque,  Paya,  the  Ulvan 
tribes,  Carib,  Mosquito,  Rama,  and  all  the  tribes  of  Costa  Rica 
(except  the  Orotina),  and  those  of  Panama — being  'considered  as 
belonging  ethnically  to  the  southern  continent.  Brinton’s  dividing 
line  was  laid  down  before  he  had  discovered  the  correct  relation  of  the 
Rama.  He  assigned  the  Jicaque,  Paya,  and  Ulvan  group  to  the 
northern  continent,  but,  in  the  judgment  of  the  writer,  Sapper’s 
division  is  the  better  one.  On  this  point  the  only  question  in  doubt 
is,  whether  or  not  the  Xincan,  Lencan,  Matagalpan,  and  Subtiaban 
tribes,  west  of  the  dividing  line  thus  drawn,  should  not  also  be  added 
to  the  South  American  list. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Ahumada,  Luis  de.  Carta  del  Padre 
Luis  de  Ahumada,  dirigida  al  Padre 
Martin  Pelaez,  Provincial  de  la  Com- 
pahia  de  Jesus  el  13  de  Noviembre  de 
1608.  In  Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  4th  ser., 
vol.  hi.  Mexico,  1857. 

Aleornoz,  Juan  de.  Arte  de  la  Lengua 
Chiapaneca  [with]  Doctrina  Christiana 
by  Luis  Barrientos;  Observations  pre- 
liminaires  by  Alph.  Pinart.  Paris, 
1875. 

Alcedo,  Antonio  de.  Diccionario  Geo- 
graphico-Historico.  Vols.  i-v.  Madrid, 
1786-1789. 

Alegre,  Francisco  Javier.  Historia 
de  la  Compania  de  Jesus  en  Nueva  Es- 
paha.  Vols.  i-m.  Mexico,  1841-42. 

Alejandre,  Marcelo.  Cartillo  Huas- 
teca  con  su  Gramatica,  Diccionario,  y 
varias  Reglas  para  aprender  el  Idioma. 
Mexico,  1890. 

Anales  del  Museo  Michoacano.  Morelia, 
1887  et  seq. 

Anonymous.  .  Vocabulario  Castellano- 
Zapoteco  (published  by  La  Junta  Co- 
lombina  de  Mexico).  Mexico,  1893. 

Arlegui,  Joseph  de.  Cronica  de  la 
Provincia  de  N.  S.  P.  S.  Francisco  de 
Zacatecas.  Mexico,  1737. 

Baegert,  Jacob.  An  account  of  the  ab¬ 
original  inhabitants  of  the  California 
Peninsula,  as  given  by  Jacob  Baegert. 
Translated  and  arranged  by  Charles 
Rau.  In  Smithsonian  Rep.  1863, 
Washington,  1864;  ibid.,  1864,  Wash¬ 
ington,  1865. 

Balbi,  Adrien.  Atlas  ethnographique 
du  Globe,  ou  Classification  des  Peuples 
anciens  et  modernes  d’apres  leurs 
Langues.  Paris,  1826. 

Bancroft,  Hubert  Howe.  The  Native 
Races  of  the  Pacific  States.  Vols.  i-v. 
San  Francisco,  1875-76. 

Bell,  Charles  N.  Remarks  on  the 
Mosquito  Territory.  In  Jour.  Roy. 
Geogr.  Soc.,  vol.  xxxn.  London, 
1862. 


Belmar,  Francisco.  (1)  Ensayo  sobre 
la  Langua  Trike.  (No  author’s  name 
on  title-page.)  Small  pamphlet. 
Oaxaca,  1897. 

- (2)  Ligero  Estudio  sobre  la  Lengua 

Mazateca.  (Pamphlet.)  Oaxaca,  1892. 

Berendt,  C.  H.  (1)  Report  of  Explora¬ 
tions  in  Central  America.  In  Smithson¬ 
ian  Report  for  1867.  Washington,  1872. 

- (2)  Geographical  Distribution  of 

the  Ancient  Central  American  Civiliza¬ 
tion.  In  Jour.  Amer.  Geoer.  Soc.  of 
New  York,  vol.  8.  Also  in  Bol.  Soc. 
Mex.  Geogr.  et  Est.,  1850  etseq.  Two 
series.  Vols.  1  and  2  entitled  “Boletin 
del  Instituto  Nacional  de  Geografia  y 
Estadistica.”  Reprint,  (3d  ed.)  1861. 

Boyle,  Frederick.  A  Ride  across  a 
Continent.  Vols.  i,  n.  London,  1868. 

Brasseur  de  Bourbourg.  (1)  Histoire 
des  Nations  Civilisees  du  Mexique  et 
de  rAmerique-Centrale.  Vols.  i-iv. 
Paris,  1857-1859. 

- (2)  Popol  Vuh.  le  Livre  Sacre  et 

les  Mythes  de  l’Antiquite  Americaine. 
Paris,  1861. 

Brinton,  Daniel  G.  (1)  On  the  so- 
called  Alaguilac  Language  of  Guate¬ 
mala.  In  Proc.  Amer.  Philos.  Soc., 
vol.  xxiv,  and  separate.  Phila.,  1887. 

- (2)  On  the  Xinca  Indians  of  Gua¬ 
temala.  In  Proc.  Amer.  Philos.  Soc., 
vol.  xxi,  and  separate.  Phila.,  1884. 

- (3)  The  American  Race.  New 

York,  1891. 

- (4)  The  Ethnic  Affinities  of  the 

Guetares  of  Costa  Rica.  In  Proc. 
Amer.  Philos.  Soc.,  vol.  xxxvi,  and 
separate.  Phila.,  1898. 

- (5)  Report  upon  the  Collections 

Exhibited  at  the  Columbian  Historical 
Exposition.  In  Report  of  U.  S.  Com¬ 
mission  to  the  Columbian  Historical 
Exposition  at  Madrid,  1892-93.  Wash¬ 
ington,  1895. 

Buelna,  Eustaquio.  Arte  de  la  Lengua 
Cahita.  1  vol.  Mexico,  1891 


97 


98 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


[b.  a.  e. 


Cancio,  D.  Lorenzo.  (1)  Noticias  Saca- 
das  de  los  Autos  sobre  la  fuga  que 
hicieron  los  Indios  del  pueblo  de  Sua- 
qui.  In  Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  4th  ser.,  vol. 
i.  Mexico,  1856. 

- (2)  Letter.  Ibid.,  ir,  1856. 

Charencey,  Le  Comte  de.  Melanges  de 
Philologie  et  de  Paleographie  Ameri- 
caines.  Paris,  1883. 

Charnay,  Desire.  The  Ancient  Cities 
of  the  New  World  (translated  from  the 
French).  New  York,  1887. 

Clavigero,  D.  Francesco  Sayerio. 
The  History  of  Mexico.  (English  trans¬ 
lation  by  Charles  Cullen).  Vols.  i,  n. 
London,  1787. 

Cordova,  Juan  de.  Arte  del  Idioma 
Zapoteco.  (Reprint.)  Morelia,  1886. 

Documentos  para  la  Ilistoria  de  Mexico. 
4  series,  20  vols.  Mexico,  1853-1857. 

Escobar,  Alonso  de.  Account  of  the 
Province  of  Yera  Paz.  In  Jour.  Roy. 
Geogr.  Soc.,  vol.  xi.  London,  1841. 

Fernandez,  Leon.  (1)  Historia  de 
Costa  Rica  durante  la  Dominacion  Es- 
panola.  1502-1821.  Madrid,  1889. 

- (2)  Lenguas  Indigenas  de  Centro 

America  en  el  Siglo  XVIII.  segiin  copia 
del  Archivo  de  Indias.  San  Jose  de 
Costa  Rica,  1892. 

- (3)  The  Guatuso  Indians  of  Costa 

Rica.  In  Smithsonian  Report  for  1882. 
Washington,  1884. 

Gabb,  William  M.  On  the  Indian 
Tribes  and  Languages  of  Costa  Rica. 
In  Proc.  Amer.  Philos.  Soc.,  vol.  xiv. 
Phila.,  1875. 

Gage,  Thomas.  The  English- American 
his  travail  by  sea  and  land:  or,  a  new 
survey  of  the  West-India’s.  London, 
1648. 

Galindo,  Juan.  Description  de  la  Rivi¬ 
ere  Usumasinta  dans  le  Guatimala.  In 
Nouv.  Ann.  Voy.,  vol.  63.  Paris,  1834. 

Garay,  Jose  de.  Reconocimiento  del 
Istmo  de  Tehuantepec.  1844. 

Garces,  Francisco.  Diario  y  derrotero. 
1775-1776.  In  Doc.  Hist.  Mex.,  2d 
ser.,  vol.  i.  Mexico,  1854. 

Garcia,  Bartholome.  Manual  para  ad- 
ministrar  los  Santos  Sacramentos.  [n.  p.  j 
1760. 


Gatschet,  Albert  S.  Classification  into 
Seven  Linguistic  Stocks  of  Western  In¬ 
dian  Dialects,  contained  in  Forty 
Vocabularies.  In  Rep.  U.  S.  Geogr. 
Surv.  West  of  tb,e  100th  Meridian,  vol. 
vii.  Washington,  1879. 

Gil,  Hilarion  Romero.  Memoria.  In 
Bol.  Soc.  Mex.  Geogr.  et  Est.,  viii. 
Mexico,  1860. 

Gomara,  Francisco  Lopez  de.  Histoire 
Generalle  des  Indes  Occidentales. 
Traduite  en  Francois  par  le  S.  de 
Genille  Mart.  Fumee.  Paris,  1606. 

Grasserie,  Raoul  de  la.  Langue 
Zoque  et  Langue  Mixe;  Grammaire, 
Dictionnaire,  Textes  traduits  et  ana¬ 
lyses.  Paris,  1898. 

Handbook  of  American  Indians  North 
of  Mexico.  Bull.  30,  pts.  1,  2,  Bureau  of 
American  Ethnology.  Washington, 
1907-1910. 

Hassel,  G.,  and  Cannabich,  J.  G.  F.  R. 
Vollstandige  und  neueste  Erdbeschrei- 
bung  vom  reiche  Mexico,  Guatemala 
und  Westindien.  Weimar,  1824. 

Herrera,  Antonio  de.  Historia  Gene¬ 
ral.  4  vols.  Madrid,  1726-30. 

Hervas,  Lorenzo.  Catalogo  de  las  Len¬ 
guas  de  las  Naciones  Conocidas.  Vol.  1: 
Lenguas  y  Naciones  Americanas.  Mad¬ 
rid,  1800. 

Hewitt,  J.  N.  B.  H.  Comparative  Lexi¬ 
cology.  In  17th  Ann.  Rept.  Bur.  Am. 
Eth.,  pt.  1,  Washington,  1898. 

Hrdlicka,  Ales.  (1)  Notes  on  the  In¬ 
dians  of  Sonora,  Mexico.  In  Am.  Anthr. 
n.s.  vol.  vi.  Lancaster,  Pa.,  1904. 

- (2)  The  region  of  the  ancient 

“Chichimecs.”  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  1903. 

ICAZBALCETA,  JOAQUIN  GARCIA.  ColeC- 
cion  de  Documentos  para  la  Historia  de 
Mexico.  Vols.  i,  n.  Mexico,  1858-66. 

Journal  of  the  American  Geographical 
Society  of  New  York.  Vol.  8.  New 
York,  1878. 

Juarros,  Domingo.  (1)  Compendio  de 
la  Historia  de  la  Ciudad  de  Guatemala. 
Vols.  i,  ii.  Guatemala,  1808-1818. 

- (2)  Also  the  English  edition,  en¬ 
titled  “A  Statistical  and  Commercial 
History  of  the  Kingdom  of  Guatemala.” 
1824. 


bull. 44]  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  OF  MEXICO  AND  CENTRAL  AMERICA  99 


Kino,  E.  F.,  Kappus,  M.  A.,  and  Mange, 
J.  M.  Itinerario.  In  Doc.  Hist.  Mex., 
4th  ser.,  vol.  i.  Mexico,  1856. 

Laet,  Ioannes  de.  Novus  Orbis.  Lugd, 
1633. 

Landa,  Diego  de.  Relation  des  Choses 
de  Yucatan.  1  vol.  Paris,  1864. 

Leon,  Nicolas.  (1)  Introduccion  [to 
the]  Arte  del  Idioma  Zapoteco  por  el  P. 
Fr.  Juan  de  Cordova.  Morelia,  1886. 

-  (2)  Familias  Linguist  icas  de 

Mexico.  Mexico,  1902. 

Ludewig,  Hermann  E.  The  Literature 
of  American  Aboriginal  Languages.  (In 
Triibner’s  Bibliotheca  Glottica,  I.) 
London,  1858. 

Lumholtz,  Carl.  The  Huichol  Indians 
of  Mexico.  In  Bull.  Amer.  Mus.  Nat. 
Hist.,  vol.  x,  pp.  1-4.  New  York,  1898. 
(Also  separate.) 

Lyon,  G.  F.  Journal  of  a  Residence  and 
Tour  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico.  Vols. 
i, ii.  London,  1828. 

McGee  W  J.  The  Seri  Indians.  In  17th 
Rep.  Bur.  Am.  Ethnol.,  pt.  1.  Wash¬ 
ington,  1898. 

Maler,  Teobert.  Researches  in  the 
Central  Portion  of  the  Usumatsintla 
Valley.  In  Mem.  Peabody  Mus.,  Harv. 
Univ.,  vol.  2,  no.  1.  Cambridge,  1901. 

Maudslay,  Alfred  P.  Exploration  of 
the  Ruins  and  Site  of  Copan,  Central 
America.  In  Proc.  Roy.  Geogr.  Soc., 
vol.  vm.  London,  1886.  (Also  sepa¬ 
rate.) 

Membreno,  Alberto.  Hondurenismos. 
Vocabulario  de  los  Provincialismos  de 
Honduras.  Tegucigalpa,  1897. 

Morfi,  Juan  Agustin  de.  Viage  de 
Indios  y  Diario  del  Nuevo-Mexico. 
Part  4,  3d  series,  Doc.  Hist.  Mex., 
Mexico,  1856(?).  (Also  separate  vol.) 

Mota  Padilla,  Matias  de  la.  Historia 
de  la  Conquista  de  la  Provincia  de  la 
Nueva-Galicia.  [1742.]  Mexico,  1870. 

Muller,  Frederick.  Grundriss  der 
Sprachwissenschaft.  Vol.  n.  Wien, 
1882. 

Nouvelles  Annales  des  Voyages.  Vol. 
63.  Paris,  1834. 

Orozco  y  Berra,  Manuel.  (1)  Geo- 
graffa  de  las  Lenguas  y  Carta  Etnogra- 
ficade  Mexico.  Mexico,  1864. 


Orozco  y  Berra,  Manuel.  (2)  Observa- 
ciones.  In  Bol.  Soc.  Mex.  Geogr.  Est., 
viii,  Mexico,  1860. 

Ortega,  Joseph  de.  Vocabulario  en 
Lengua  Castellana  y  Cora.  1732.  In 
Bol.  Soc.  Mex.  Geogr.  Est.,  1st  ser.,  vol. 
viii,  Mexico,  1860.  (Also  separate.) 

Oviedo  y  Valdes,  Gonzalo  Fernandez 
de.  Historia  General  y  Natural  de  las 
Indias.  Vols.m,  iv.  Madrid,  1853-55. 

Palacio,  Diego  Garcia  de.  Carta  Di- 
rijida  al  Rey  de  Espaha,  ano  1576.  Al¬ 
bany,  1860.  No.  1  of  Squier’s  Collec¬ 
tion. 

Peralta,  Manuel  M.  de.  (1)  Costa- 
Rica,  Nicaragua  y  Panama  en  el  Siglo 
XVI.  Madrid  and  Paris,  1883. 

- (2)  On  the  Ethnology  of  Costa  Rica. 

In  Doctor  Brin  ton’s  “  Report  upon  the 
Collection  Exhibited  at  the  Colum¬ 
bian  Historical  Exposition  at  Madrid.” 
Washington,  1895.  See  Brin  ton  (5). 

Pimentel,  D.  Francisco.  Cuadro  de- 
scriptivo  y  comparativo  de  las  Lenguas 
Indigenas  de  Mexico.  Vols.  i,  n. 
Mexico,  1862-1865. 

Pinart,  A.  L.  (1)  Vocabulario  Castella- 
no-Cuna.  Paris,  1890. 

- (2)  Vocabulario  .  Castellano-Do- 

rasque,  Dialectos  Chumulu,  Gualaca,  y 
Changuina.  Paris,  1890. 

- (3)  Vocabulario  Castellano-Guay- 

mie,  Dialectos  Move-Valiente,  Norteno 
y  Guaymie-Penonomeno.  Paris,  1892. 

- (4)  Vocabulario  Castellano-K’ak’- 

chi.  Paris,  1897. 

- (5)  Les  Indiens  de  l’Etat  de  Pa¬ 
nama.  In  Revue  d’Ethnographie,  vi, 
Paris,  1887. 

Pettier,  H.  Nombres  Geographicos  de 
Costa  Rica.  1.  Talamanca.  San  Jose 
de  Costa  Rica,  1895. 

- and  Gagini,  C.  Ensayo  Lexico- 

grafico  sobre  la  Lengua  de  Terraba. 
San  Jose  de  Costa  Rica,  1892. 

Plancarte,  F.  LosTecos.  In  An.  Mus. 
Michoacano.  Ano  segunda.  Morelia, 
1889. 

Powell,  John  Wesley.  Indian  Lin¬ 
guistic  Families.  In  Seventh  Ann. 
Rep.  Bur.  Am.  Ethn.  Washington,  1891. 

Prichard,  James  Cowles.  The  Natural 
History  of  Man.  Vol.  n.  London,  1855. 


100 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


[b.  a.  e. 


Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Geographical 
Society.  London,  1886. 

Reclus,  Elisee.  The  Earth  and  its  In¬ 
habitants — North  America.  Edited  by 

A.  H.  Keane.  Yol.n.  New  York,  1892. 
Remesal,  Antonio  de.  Historia  de  la 

Provincia  de  San  Vicente  de  Chyapa. 
Madrid,  1619. 

Ribas,  Andres  Perez  de.  Historia  de 
los  Triumphos  de  Nuestra  Santa  Fee. 
Madrid,  1645. 

Rudo  Ensayo,  tentativa  de  una  preven- 
cional  descripcion  geographica  de  la 
provincia  de  Sonora.  [Written  about 
1762.]  San  Augustin  de  la  Florida, 
1863. 

Sahagun,  Barnardino  de.  Histoire 
Generale  des  Choses  de  la  Nouvelle- 
Espagne.  Translated  into  French  by 
D.  Jourdanetand  Remi  Simeon.  Paris, 
1880. 

Sapper,  Carl.  (1)  Beitrage  zur  Ethno- 
graphie  des  siidlichen  Mittelamerika. 
In  Petermanns  Mitteilungen,  B.  47, 
H.  2,  Gotha,  1901. 

- (2)  Has  Nordliche  Mittel-Amerika. 

Braunschweig,  1897. 

Scherzer,  Karl.  In  Sitzb.  Kais.  Akad. 
Wissenschaften  Philos. -Hist.  Classe. 

B.  15.  Wien,  Jan.,  1855. 

Seler,  Eduard.  Notice  sur  les  Langues 
Zapoteque  et  Mixteque.  Congres  In¬ 
ternational  des  Americanistes.  Compte- 
Rendu.  8th  sess.  Paris,  1890. 

Sevin,  Ch.  Journey  to  Mexico.  In 
Jour.  Roy.  Geogr.  Soc.,  vol.  xxx.  Lon_ 
don,  1860. 

Shufeldt,  Robert  W.  Reports  of 
Explorations.  Ship-Canal  by  way  o^ 
Tehuantepec.  (42d  Cong.,  2d  sess. 
Ex.  Doc.  6.)  Washington,  1872. 
Squier,  E.  G.  (1)  A  Visit  to  the  Guaji_ 
quero  Ind’  s.  In  Harper’s  Magazine, 
New  York,  Oct.,  1859. 

— - (2)  In  Historical  Magazine,  vol. 

4,  no.  3,  New  York,  1860. 

- (3)  Nicaragua:  Its  People,  Scen¬ 
ery,  Monuments,  and  the  proposed  In- 
teroceanic  Canal.  2  vols.  New  York, 
1852.  (Vol.  2  only  referred  to.) 

- (4)  Notes  on  Central  America; 

particularly  the  States  of  Honduras  and 
San  Salvador.  1vol.  New  York,  1855. 


Starr,  Frederick.  Notes  upon  the 
Ethnography  of  Southern  Mexico.  Re¬ 
printed  from  Proc.  Davenport  Acad. 
Nat.  Sci.,  vol.  viii,  1900. 

Stoll,  Otto.  (1)  Die  Sprache  der  Ixil- 
Indianer.  Leipzig,  1887. 

- (2)  Zur  Ethnographie  der  Repub- 

lik  Guatemala.  Zurich,  1884. 

Tellechea,  P.  Fr.  Miguel.  Compendio 
Gramatical  para  la  Inteligencia  del 
Idioma  Tarahumar.  Mexico,  1826. 

Thiel,  Bernardo  A.  (1)  Apuntes  Lexi- 
cograficos  de  las  Lenguas  y  Dialectos  de 
los  Indios  de  Costa  Rica.  San  Jose 
de  Costa  Rica,  1882. 

Thiel,  Bernardo  A.  (2)  Viajes  a  Varias 
Partes  de  la  Republica  de  Costa  Rica. 
San  Jose,  1896. 

Uhde,  Adolph.  Die  Lander  am  untern 
Rio  Bravo  del  Norte.  Heidelberg,  1861. 

Uhle,  M.  Verwandtschaften  und  Wan- 
derungen  der  Tschibtscha.  In  Con¬ 
gres  International  des  Americanistes, 
7  th  sess.  Berlin,  1888. 

Vater,  Johann  Severin.  Mithridates 
oder  allgemeine  Sprachenkunde.  Vols. 
i-iv.  Berlin,  1806-1817. 

Velasco,  Jose  Francisco.  (1)  Noticias 
Estadisticas  del  Estado  de  Sonora.  In 
Bol.  Soc.  Mex.  Geogr.  y  Est.,  vol.  viii. 
Mexico,  1860. 

- (2)  Continuacion  de  la  Estadistica 

de  Sonora.  Ibid.,  vol  x,  1863. 

Venegas,  Miguel.  Noticia  de  la  Cali¬ 
fornia  y  de  su  Conquista  Temporal,  y 
Espiritual  Hasta  el  Tiempo  Presente. 
Vols.  i-iii.  Madrid,  1757. 

Villagutierre  Soto-Mayor,  Juan  de. 
Historia  de  la  Conquista  de  la  Pro¬ 
vincia  de  el  Itza.  [Madrid]  1701. 

Villa-Senor  y  Sanchez,  Joseph  Anto¬ 
nio  de.  Theatro  Americano.  Vols.  i, 
h.  Mexico,  1746-48. 

Williams,  J.  J.  The  Isthmus  of  Tehuan¬ 
tepec.  New  York,  1852. 

Young,  Thomas.  Narrative  of  a  Resi¬ 
dence  on  the  Mosquito  Shore.  London, 
1842. 

Zapata,  Juan  Ortiz.  Relacion  de  las 
Misiones  que  la  Compania  de  Jesus  tiene 
en  el  Reino  y  Provincia  de  la  Nueva 
Vizcaya.  1678.  In  Doc.  Hist.  Mex., 
4th  ser.,  vol.  hi.  Mexico,  1857. 


INDEX  OF  LINGUISTIC  FAMILIES,  TRIBES,  AND  SETTLEMENTS 


Page 

Acala .  61 

Acaxee .  19-21,24,31 

Achis .  66 

Acoclames .  34 

Aguacateca .  66,67 

Aguascalientes .  43 

Ahomamas .  39 

Ahome .  5,12-16,24,26,35 

Aiage . ■  20 

Aibino,  Aiyino .  4-6,24,26 

Ajuchitlan .  50 

Alaguilac .  72,73 

Alamamas .  39 

Alchedoma .  24-26,29,34 

Altamira .  49 

Amatitlan .  69 

Amisiigo,  Amucho,  Amusgo .  54 

Anacana .  45 

Ancasiguais .  45 

Ancavistis . 24,26 

Anchanes .  24,26,30 

Antigua .  68 

Apache .  6,8,25,27-30,32,37,45 

Aretines .  45 

Arigames . 24,32 

Arivetzi .  7 

Asunci6n  de  Macoyahui .  18 

Asunci6n  de  Tepave .  18 

Asuncion  Tlaxcalilla .  41 

Ate.  See  Ateanaca. 

Ateacari .  22,24,26 

Ateanaca .  22,24,26 

Atitlan .  68 

Atoyac .  50 

Auyapemes .  45 

Ayapaguemes .  45 

Aztec .  17,42,46,50-52,72,78,82 


Babo . 

Babispe.  See  Bapispe. 

Baca . 

Bacabaches . 

Bacapas . 

Bagiopa,  Baquiopa . 

Baimena,  Baitrena . 

Baimoa . 

Baitrena . 

See  Baimena. 

Bamoa . 

Bapiape . 

Bapispe . 

Baquiopa.  See  Bagiopa. 

Basopa . 

Basopan . 

Basiroas . . 

B ATUCARI . 


...  24,28,32 

.  14,26 

.  24,26 

.  24,26 

. 24,26 

.  17,18 

20,24,26,32 
.  18 

.  4,5,24 

.  8 

4,5,24,32-34 


..  16,17,24,26 

.  27 

24,26,29,31-33 
15, 16,24,26,27 


Page 

Batucos .  8,24,26,32 

See  Eudeve. 

Baturoque . 24,27 

Bayacatos .  24,27 

Bayamos .  94 

Bayano.  See  Cuna. 

Beceita.  See  Veceita. 

Belen .  11 

Biaras,  Biaris .  24,27,30 

Boragios .  lo 

See  Varohio. 

Borrados .  45 

Boruca .  83,84,88-92 

Boto.  See  Voto. 

Bribri . . .  88-92 

Brunca.  See  Boruca. 

Buasdaba .  8,25,33 

Buasdapas .  34 

Bugava .  93,94 

Bulbuls . 79 

Buricas,  Burucas.  See  Boruca. 

► 

Cabecar,  Cabecara,  Cabecares .  83,89,91 

Cabeza .  37 

Cacalotes .  30 

Cacaopera .  76 

Cacari,  Cacaria . 24,27 

Cadinias .  45 

Cahabon .  68 

Cahiguas.  See  Kiowa. 

Cahita .  11-16,21,29 

See  Yaqui. 

Cahuimeto .  16 

Cajone .  55 

Cajuenche .  24,27,29,30,32,34 

Cakchikel .  67,68,75 

Calderas .  93 

Canaynes .  45 

Canceres .  24,27 

Cangen .  82 

Cantren .  78 

Caramariguanes .  45 

Caramiguais . 45 

Carapoa .  14 

Carca. .  80 

Carcha .  79 

See  Cukra. 

Carlanes . 24,27 

Carib .  75,76,81,96 

Caribayes .  45 

Caribbean .  81,95 

Catanamepaques .  45 

Cavenata .  12 

Caviseras .  39 

Caxcanes .  24 

CAZCAN .  23,24,40-43 

101 


102 


INDEX  OF  LINGUISTIC  FAMILIES 


Page 

Cazcanes  Chiciiimecas .  24 

Cerro  Prieto .  47 

Chafalotes .  24,27 

ClIAJUL .  67 

Chakahuaxti .  49 

Chaliva . 93,94 

Chanabal,  Chaneabal . . .  64, 65 

ClIANGUAGUANES . 24,27 

Changuene .  83,84,89,93 

Changuina .  90,94 

Charay .  15 

Charcas .  41 

Chatino .  54 

Chemeguabas.  See  Chemeguet. 

Chemegue .  24 

Chemeguet,  Chemeguaba,  Chemegues, 

Chemehueyi .  24,26,27 

Chiapa .  61 

Chiapanec,  Chiapaneca .  60-62,82 

Chiapanecan .  76-78,85 

Chibcha .  80,81,84,85,88,89,95 

Chicagua.  See  Sigua. 

Chicaua .  82,93 

Chichagua.  See  Sigua. 

Chichen  Itza .  71 

Chiciiimec,  Chichimeca,  Chichimecos .  40-43, 

46,48,83,93 

Chiciiimecas  Blancos .  43 

Chicorata,  Chicorato .  12, 16, 24, 26, 32 

Chicomucelo .  64,65 

Chicomucelteca . 64, 65 

Ciiicuras .  24,27 

See  Cicuris. 

Chicurata .  17 

Chilanga .  74 

Chimalapan .  72 

Chin  ante  c .  55 

Chinarra .  24,29,32,34 

See  Hum  a. 

Chinipa .  8-10, 18, 24, 26, 28, 32, 33, 35 

See  Tar  ahum  are. 

Chinquime .  53 

Chiquimula.^ .  70 

Chiricaguts,  Ciiiricahua . 24, 27 

Chiros . 24,28 

Chirripo .  89-91 

Chizo .  24,28,34 

Chocho .  51,53,54,96 

Chociiontin .  53 

Chol,  Chores .  61-64,66,69,71-73,75 

Cholomos . 30 

Cholos .  94 

Choluteca .  76,77 

See  Mangue. 

Ciiomes .  83 

Ciiondal,  Ciiontal .  52,53,58-63,74,76 

Chontal-Lencas .  74 

Chora .  21 

See  Cora. 

Chorote .  78 

Chorotega .  77, 78, 82-84, 86 

Chorti .  63,69,70,72 

Chota .  21 

See  Cora. 

Ciiuchon.  See  Chocho. 

Chucunaque.  See  Cuna. 


Page 

Chuje,  Chuhe .  64-66 

Chuloteca . •. .  77 

Chumaltenango .  68 

Chumula .  94 

Cibola .  31 

Cicuris .  27 

Cinaloas .  11-16,21 

See  Yaqui. 

ClNARRAS .  34 

ClVOLO .  31 

Coahuiltecan,  Coahuilteco .  38,42 

Coban .  68,69 

Coca .  23,24,26 

Cociiimi .  2,3 

Coclamas . 24,27,28 

Cocobiptas . 24,27 

Cocopa,  Cucapa,  CUIIANES .  2,25,27,29,32,34 

Cocos .  79 

Cocotlanes.  See  Colotlan. 

Coctos.  See  Cotos. 

Cocoyome . 28,37 

Coguinaciiis .  7,24,26 

See  Opata. 

Colotlan,  Cocotlan,  Coloclan . 22,23 

Comanche .  29 

Comecamotes .  45 

Comecrudo . • .  38,45 

COMESACAPEMES .  45 

COMICARI .  33 

Comopori .  15,16,24,26 

Comoripa,  Comuripa .  4-6, 15, 24, 26 

Concepci6n .  9 

Concepci6n  de  Chicorato .  17 

Concepci6n  de  Vaca .  14 

Concha,  Concho  . .  8, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30-32, 34, 36-38, 42 

Conejos .  24,27,30 

Conguaco .  74 

Conicari .  12,18,19,33 

Contlas .  24,27 

COOKRA .  79 

Cop  ala .  53 

Copan .  63,69,70 

Cora .  3, 21-24, 26, 32, 34, 36, 40-43 

Corbesies.  See  Corobicies. 

Corobicies .  77,82 

Corotapa . 82,93 

Cotoname .  38,45 

Cotos .  83,84,88,92 

COTZAL .  67 

Cuachichiles.  See  Guachichile. 

Cuampes .  24,27 

CUANES .  2 

See  Cocopa. 

Cucapa.  See  Cocopa. 

Cuencame .  39 

Cues .  19,24,25,27,31 

Cueva.  See  Cuna. 

Cuhanes.  See  Cocopa. 

CuiLAPA .  52 

CuiCATECO .  55 

Cuitlateca,  Cuitlateco .  50, 51 , 53 

CUIXTLAHUAC .  52 

CUKRA .  79,80 

See  Carcha,  Cookra. 

Culmi .  75 

Cumupa .  8,25,33,34 


INDEX  OF  LINGUISTIC  FAMILIES 


103 


Page 

CUNA .  94-96 

Cunacuna.  See  Cuna. 

Cunai .  24,27 

See  Cocopa. 

Cutecos .  24,28,29 

See  Husorones. 

CUTGANES .  24,27 

See  Cocopa. 


Daparabopos . 

Dariens . 

See  Cuna. 

Didu . 

Diegueno . 

Diria,  Dirian . 

Ditsakana . 

Djbar-uak . 

Dohema,  Dohme. . 

See  Eudeve. 

Doraces . 

Dorachos . 

See  Dorask. 

Dorask,  Doraskan,  Doraskean 

ASQUE . 

Dorasque-Changuina . 

Dulce  Nombre.  See  Culmi. 


39 

94 


28 

76-78,82 

29 

92 

i 

..  83,93 
94 


,  Dor- 
77,80,90,93-95 
.  93 


Eastern  Lacandones .  70 

Echunticas .  24,28 

Edu .  2 

Egue .  6 

See  Eudeve. 

El  Fuerte .  35 

Esqutpulas .  70 

Estrella . 89,91 

Etla .  55 

Eudeve,  Heve .  6,7,26,34 

Earaon,  Faraon  Apache .  24, 26-31 


Gabilanes .  37 

Garabito .  83 

Gecualme .  22 

Gecuiches .  24,28 

Genicutches .  24,28 

See  Serranos. 

Gela  Apache,  Gilenos .  24,25,28,32 

Gojoles . 24,28 


Gozaua,  Gozopas,  Gua^aues.  See  Gua- 

ZAVE. 


Guacihchile .  22,23,40,41,44,47 

GuAcmciin.ES  Chichimecos . _  41 

Guadalupe .  10 

Guaicama<!>pas . 24,28 

Guailopas .  24,28,29 

Guajiquero . 74 

Gualaca .  93,94 

Guaropaque .  28 

Guasarochic .  29 

Guatajigua .  74 

Guatusan .  85 

Guatuso .  77,80,82,84,87 

Guavi .  59 

See  IIuame. 

Guayma .  5,10,11 

Guaymi,  Guaymie .  83,84,89,93-96 

Guazapare,  Guazaparis,  Guazipare,  Guizi- 
pares .  8-10,32,33,35,36 


Page 

Guazarachis .  24,28 

Guazave,  Quasare .  5,12,15-17,28 

Guetare,  Guetars . 83-90 

Guiciiola.  See  IIuichol. 

Guichicovi .  60 

Guixolotes .  45 

Gummesacapemes .  45 

Gurutina.  See  Orotina. 

Havasupai,  Supis .  25,31 

Heve.  See  Eudeve. 

Hiahiu.  See  Otomi. 

Hiaqui.  See  Yaqui. 

Hiciiucios .  24 

HlJOS,  Hios,  Ihios .  9,10,24,26,29,31-33,35 

Himeris .  24,34,35 

Hina .  20,21,24,26 

Hizos .  24,29 

Hoabonoma .  30 

See  Oaboponomas. 

Hoeras . 39 

Horcasitas .  44 

Hostimuri .  15 

Huabi,  Huave .  59,60 

See  Huame. 

Huame .  59 

Huasteca .  42,  43,  45, 46,  48,  49, 65, 66 

Huastecoa .  47 

Huave.  See  Huabi. 

Hudcoadanes . 24,29 

Huere .  35 

Huehuetenango .  67 

Huetare.  See  Guetare. 

Huichol,  Huicholas .  22,28,41 

Huime.  See  Hume. 

Huite .  10,21,24,26 

Huma . 24,29,34 

See  Chinarra. 

Hume,  Huime .  20,21,24,26 

IIumeris .  32 

* 

Hure .  35 

Husorones . ♦. .  24,28,29 

Huvagueres .  24,29,31,32 

Hymeris.  See  Himeris. 

Ihios.  See  Hijos. 

Ika .  2 

Intibucat .  74 

Ipapana .  49 

Iritilas,  Iritiles,  Irritila,  Irritilas..  37-40,42 

Itza .  70-72 

IXHUATAN .  59 

Ixil .  67,68 

Iximchi .  68 

Izcateco .  55 

Iztepec .  55 

Jacalteca .  64-66 

Jacaltenango .  64-66,69 

Jagullapais.  See  Walapai. 

Jalapa .  69 

Jalchedun,  Jalciiedune.  See  Alche- 

DOMA. 

Jallicuamai,  Jallicuamay .  25, 29, 34 

See  Quigyuma. 

Jamajabs.  See  Mohave. 

Janambre .  44,46 


104 


INDEX  OF  LINGUISTIC  FAMILIES 


Janos . 

Jaquallapais.  See  Walapai. 

JlCARILLA,  JlCARILLA  APACHE.. 
See  XlCARILLAS. 

JlCAQUE . 

JlCAQUEAN . 

JlJIMES . 

JlNCA.  See  XlNCA. 

JOBAL.  SeeJOVA. 

JOCOMES,  JOCOMIS . 

JOCOTAN . 

Jonases,  Jonaz.  See  Meco. 

Jova,  Ova . 

Juave.  See  Huame. 

JULIMES . 

JUMANES . 

JUPILTEPEQUE . 

JUTIAPA . 


Page  i 
..  25,29 

..  27,32 

74-76,95 

75 

..  19-21  i 


25,29 

69 

7,8 

30,34 

25,29 

73 

73 


K’aktchi.  See  Kekchi. 


Kawia .  28 

Kekchi .  67-69,71 

Kiche,  Quiche .  67,68 

Kiowa,  Cahigua .  24, 27 

Kork-uak .  92 

Kotsoteka .  28 


Lacandon .  63,70-72 

Laguneros .  37-40 

See  Iritilas. 

Laman .  79 

Lanquin .  68 

Las  Prietas .  38,45 

Laymon .  2 

Lenca .  73-75,79 

Lencan  Stock . .  53,72-75,77,96 

Lencan  Pupuluca .  73,74 

Lipan .  45 

Lislique .  76 

Llamparicas .  25,29 

Loretto .  2 

Lorillard  City.  See  Menche. 

Los  Dolores .  7 

Lower  Pima .  4-8,11,18,29,31,32,35,36 

Lower  Tarahumare .  9 


Macoyahui,  Macoyahuy .  18, 31 

Maguiaquis .  25,28,29 

Maiconeras .  39 

Maiz .  47 

Malinchenos .  45 

Mam,  Mame .  65-67 

Mamites,  Mammites .  25,29 

Mandinga.  See  Cuna. 


Mangue . ' .  76-78,82-84 

See  Chorotega. 

Maribi.  See  Subtiaba. 

Maricopa .  30 

Mariguanes .  45 

Matachic .  8 

Matagalpa .  76 

Matagalpan . . .  76, 77, 96 

Matapanes .  25,30 

Matlaltzinco .  48 

See  Pirinda. 

Maya .  15,59,63,64,6",  70-72, 75 

Mayan  Family .  1,48,49,53,59,61,62,65-67,69 

Mayan  Pupuluca .  73 


Page 

Mayathan.  See  Maya. 

Mayo .  5,12-14,18,19,26,35 

Mayon .  12 

Mazahua .  46,47 

Mazatec,  Mazateca,  Mazateco .  54,55 

Mazatenango .  67 

Meco .  48 

Mediotaguel .  25,32,34 

Mejuos .  25,30 

Melchoras . * .  79,80 

Menche .  63,71 

Mescaleros.  See  Mezcaleros. 

Mesquites.  See  Mezquites. 

Me  viras .  39 

Mexican,  Mexicano .  19,20,23, 

34, 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 48, 50, 51, 60, 61, 78, 82, 83,  93 
See  Aztec,  Nahuatl,  Nahuatlan, 

Sigua. 

Mexcaltepec .  50 

Mextitlaneca .  50 

Mextitlatecq .  42 

Mezcaleros .  25,30 

Mezquites . • .  30 

Miciioacano .  51 

See  Tarasco. 

Micos .  79 

Mictlantongo .  52 

MiMBREftos .  25,30 

Miopacoas . 39 

Mita .  69 

Mixe .  51,60,65,74 

Mixtec,  Mixtecas .  52-58 

Mixteco-Zapoteco .  54 

Mize.  See  Mixe. 

Mobas.  See  Movas. 

Mochicagui,  Mochicahuy .  15,35 

Mocorito .  35 

Mohave,  Jamajabs,  Tamajabs,  Yama- 

JABS .  25,29,34 

Montages .  52 

Montecristo .  70 

Montenegro .  65 

Mopan,  Mopanas .  64,70-72 

Moreno .  76 

Mosquito .  79,80,94,96 

Motozintleca .  65 

Movas,  Mobas .  4-6,25,26 

Move-Valiente .  95 

Moyaua . . . . .  82, 93 

Muares .  25,30 

Muoi .  95 

Murire .  95 

Murire-Bukueta .  95 

Muutzicat .  22,25,26 

See  Muutzizti. 

Muutzizti .  25 

Nacameri .  25,35 

Nacosuras .  25,35 

Nagrandans .  77 

See  Subtiaba. 

Nahuatl,  Nahua,  Nahoa .  12, 42, 43, 55, 82-84 

Nahuatlan .  1,18,20,21,24,36,37, 

41, 44, 46, 50, 51, 59, 65, 72-74, 76, 78, 89, 92, 93 

Naolingo . 49 

Nayarit,  Nayarita .  21,22,24 

See  Cora. 


INDEX  OF  LINGUISTIC  FAMILIES 


105 


Page 

Navaho,  Navajo,  Nava  jo  a .  25,30 

Nebaj . 67 

Nebomes.  See  Lower  Pima. 

Nenton .  66 

Netzecho .  55 

Neuton.  See  Nenton. 

Nevomes.  See  Lower  Pima. 

Nicoya .  78 

See  Orotina. 

Nio .  16,17 

NlQUIRAN .  42,76,78 

N  OCHIZTL  AN .  52 

Nocori .  4 

Norteno .  95 

Nuestra  Senora  de  Aranzazu .  27 

Nuevo  Le6n .  38 

Nure,  Nuri .  4-6,25,26,28,32 

Oaboponomas .  25,30 

Ochoes .  39 

Ocoroni .  12,25,32,35 

Ocoroiri.  See  Ocoroni. 

Ocotlan .  55 

Oguera,  Ohuera .  16 

Olive .  44 

Olmec .  55 

Onabas,  Onavas .  4-6,25,26 

Opas .  25,30 

Opata .  4-8,11,25-27,32-35 

Opata-Taraiiumar-Pima  family .  22 

Opatoro .  74 

Oposines .  25,30 

Orejones .  25,30 

Oronihuatos .  25,30 

Orotina .  78,81,82,86,96 

Orotinan . , .  76-78 

Ostimuri.  See  IIostimuri. 

Otaquitamones .  25,30 

Otomi .  41-43,46,47,50 

O  TO  MIAN .  48 

Ova.  See  Jova. 

Pacaca .  83 

PACASA .  25,32,35 

Pachera .  8, 9 

Pachuca .  42 

Paiute .  30 

Pajalames .  25,30 

Pakawa,  Pakawan .  37,38,45 

Palenque .  62,63,70 

Pame .  42,44,46,47 

Pan  an  a  (Pawnee) . 25,30 

Panguayes .  45 

Pantasmas .  79 

Pantepec .  49 

Paogas . 39 

Papago . 26,30 

Papudo .  20,25,26 

Paro... .  82 

Parras .  39 

Parrastahs .  79 

Pasalmes . 25,30 

Pasitas .  45 

Pawnee . 30 

Paxuchis . 25,30 

Paya,  Pay  an .  74, 75, 96 

Payuchas . 25,30 


Page 

Pazuchis .  30 

Pericu .  2,3 

Petapa .  69 

Petatlan . . .  35 

Peten . 63,70,71 

See  Itza. 

PlATOS . 25,30 

PlEDRAS  NEGRAS .  63 

Pima . 4-6,11,15,16,30,31,35 

See  Lower  Pima. 

Piman . 2,4,6,20,36 

Pima  Bajo.  See  Lower  Pima. 

PlMERIA  ALTA...-. .  11 

PlNOME .  53 

Pinos .  41 

Pintos .  45 

Pipil .  68,72,73,75,78 

PlRINDA . 46,48 

PlROS .  25,32,35 

Pisone . 44,46 

POARAMES . 25,30 

Pococi .  82 

Pokam,  POKOMAM . 64,66,68,69,73 

Pokonchi . 68,69 

POLAMES . 25,30 

POLIUTLA .  50 

PONIDA .  7 

Popoloca,  Popoloco .  51,53,54,60,73 

See  Pupuluca. 

POTLAPIGUA .  4,32 

POTRERO .  93 

Pueblos .  31 

PULICAS,  PUILQUES,  PULIQUIS . 25,30 

Pupuluca .  5,53,68,73,74 

See  Popoloca. 

Pupuluca  Cakchikel .  68 

PURISIMA  CONCEPCI6N  DE  ARNEDO .  47 

PUTIMA . 25,30 

QUALCAN .  83 

Quasare .  35 

See  Guazave. 

Quekchi.  See  Kekchi. 

Quelene .  61,62 

Quemaya .  25,30,31 

Quepos .  83,84,88,90 

Quequexque . 82,93 

Quetzaltenango .  67 

Quicamopas .  25,31 

Quiche.  See  Kiche. 


Qutgyuma .  29 

See  Jallicuamai. 

Quihuimas .  25 

See  Quiquima. 

Quinicuanes .  45 

Quiquima . 25,31,34 

Quirigua . 63,70 

Rabinal . 67 

Rama .  80,87,96 

Sabaibo .  19,20 

Sabanero .  95 

Sahuaripa .  7 

Salineros .  11,25,26 

Saltillo .  41 

Salto  de  Agua .  64 


8347°— Bull.  44—11 - 8 


106 


INDEX  OF  LINGUISTIC  FAMILIES 


Page 

San  Agustin .  72 

San  Andres .  20 

San  Andres  Chicahuaxtla .  53 

San  Andres  Chinipas .  28 

San  Andres  de  Conicari .  10,28 

San  Antonio .  44 

San  Blas  Indians.  See  Cuna. 

San  Cristobal .  50 

San  Cristobal  Acasaguastlan .  72 

San  Francisco . , .  50 

San  Francisco  Borgia .  2 

San  Francisco  de  Coahuila .  38 

San  Francisco  Xavier . *. .  44 

San  Ignacio .  9 

San  Ignacio  de  Chicuris .  17 

San  Ignacio  de  Nio .  17 

S.  Jose  Cabecar .  89 

San  Jose  Charay .  14 

San  Jose  Chicahuaxtla .  53 

San  Jose  del  Toro .  18 

San  Jose  Temaichic .  9 

San  Jose  Teopari . 7 

San  Jose  Vizarron .  48 

S.  Juan  Bautista  de  Carapoa .  13 

San  Luis .  41 

San  Luis  de  la  Paz .  47,48 

San  Martin  de  Atotonilco .  20 

San  Martin  Ytunyosa .  53 

San  Mateo  Malzura .  7 

San  Mateo  Tecayas .  31 

San  Miguel . 9 

San  Miguel  Chicahuaxtla .  53 

San  Miguel  de  Zuaque .  15 

San  Miguel  Mezquitic .  41 

San  Miguel  Uspantan .  68 

San  Pedro  Carcha .  68 

San  Pedro  Guadalcazar .  43 

San  Pedro  Guazave .  17 

San  Pedro  Sabana .  64 

Santa  Ana .  34 

Santa  Catalina  de  Baitrena .  18 

Santa  Catarina  Martyrs  de  Rio  Verde..  43 

Santa  Cruz  Quiche .  67 

Santafe  de  Punta-hicacos .  76 

Santa  Ines .  10 

Santa  Ines  de  Chinipa .  10,28 

Santa  Lucia  Cozumalhuapa .  73 

Santa  Maria  de  Batuco .  33 

Santa  Maria  Magdalena  de  Temoris . 35-36 

Santa  Rosa .  70 

Santa  Teresa  de  Guazapares .  36 

Santo  Domingo  Chicahuaxtla .  53 

Santo  Domingo  del  Palenque .  64 

Santo  Tomas .  7,8 

Saulapaguemes .  45 

Savanerics .  94 

Savirijoa .  14 

Segua.  See  Sigua. 

Seguis.  See  Teguis. 

Seri .  4-7,10,11,36 

Serranos . 28,48 

Shelaba.  See  Sigua. 

Sibubapas .  25,31 

Sigua .  92 

Similiton .  74 

SlNACANTAN .  73 


Page 

SlNALOAS .  11-15,21,27,28,30,31 

See  Yaqui. 

SlNALOITA . 14 

SlQUIAS .  79 

Sisibotari .  5,25,32,35 

Sisimbres .  25,28,31 

Sivirijoa .  15 

Sivolos .  25,30,31 

Smoos .  79 

See  Ulva. 

SOBAIPURI .  25,31 

Sobas .  31 

SOLEDAD  DE  LAS  CANOAS .  48 

SOLOLA .  68 

Sonoran  group .  21 

Sovas .  25 

Suaque,  Suaqui.  See  Zuague. 

SUBINHA .  65 

SUBIRONAS .  79 

SUBTIABA,  SUBTIABAN .  76,77,96 

SUCHIAPA .  61 

SUERRE  (?) .  87 

Sumas .  25,32,35 

Sumo .  79 

See  Ulva. 

Sunas .  33 

Supis.  See  Havasupai. 

Tactic .  69 

Tagualllos . 45 

Tahue .  25,32,34,35 

See  Tahueca. 

Tahueca .  35 

Talamanca .  85,88,89,96 

Talamancan .  80, 85, 86, 90-93 

Tamaja .  69 

Tamajabs.  See  Mohave. 

Tamaulipas . . . 38,45 

Tamaulipecan .  42 

Tamaulipeco . 44,45 

Tamazulapa .  52 

T  AMIME .  43 

Tanaquiapemes  . . .  45 

Tanoan .  35 

Taocas,  Twacas .  79 

Tapa  CHULA . 60,65 

Tapachulteca . 60,65 

Tapacolmes .  25,30,31,34 

Tapijulapanes .  60 

Tarahumare .  4, 6-10, 18, 19, 28, 29, 33-38 

Tarascan .  47 

Tarasco .  46,48,51 

Tariaca .  83,89-91 

Tatimolo .  49 

Taura . 10 

Teacuacitzica,  Teacuacitzisti,  Tecuat- 

ZILZISTI .  22,25,26 

Tebaca .  19,20 

Teca .  51 

Tecargonis . 25,31 

Tecaya .  20,25,26,30-32 

Tecayagues,  Tecayagui .  19, 24, 25, 27, 31 

See  Cues. 

Teco . 50,51,53 

See  Cuitlateca. 

Tecolutan .  72 


INDEX  OF  LINGUISTIC  FAMILIES 


107 


Page 

Tecoripa . 4-6,25,26 

Tecpam .  68 

Tecualme .  22 

Tecuatzilzisti.  See  Teacuacitzica. 

Tecuexe,  Tecuezes .  23.24,43 

Tedexenos. .  45 

Teguecos.  See  Tehueco. 

Teguima .  6,7,25,26 

See  Opata. 

TegPis,  Seguis .  7,25,26 

See  Opata. 

Tehatas.. .  25,29,31,33 

Tehue .  33,34 

Tehueco,  Tegueco,  Thehueco .  5, 

12-15,18,19,27,29,30, 35 

Tehuiso,  Tehuizos .  25,29,31,33 

Teluskie(?) .  94 

Temori .  9,10,25,32 

Tenango .  53 

Tenime .  53 

Temosique .  64 

Teo-Chichimeca .  43 

Tepahue,  Tepaue,  Tepaye .  18, 19, 31, 33 

Teparantana .  25,31 

Tepaue,  Tepave.  See  Tepahue. 

Tepecano .  22-24,28,43 

Tepehuane,  Tepehuan,  Tepehua,  Tepe- 

HUANA,  TEPEGUANE .  4, 

5, 8, 9, 17, 19, 23, 24, 27, 36, 40, 41, 46, 50 

Teposcolula .  52 

Tepuzculano .  52 

Tequistlateca . v .  58,59 

Sec  Chontal. 

Tequistlatecan .  59 

Terraba,  Terbis,  Terrebes,  Tiribi,  Tir- 

ribi .  83,84,89-92 

Tesomachic .  8 

See  Tosonachic. 

Tetifolhati .  49 

Teul,  Teule .  23,24,42 

Teul-Chiciiimecs .  24,40,41,43 

Tezcoco,  Tezcuco .  42,50 

Thehuecos.  See  Tehueco. 

Tiburones .  25,32,36 

Til  a .  64 

Tintis .  25,31 

Tiribi,  Tiribies,  Tiribis,  Tirribi,  Tirri- 
bies.  See  Terraba. 

Tlacolulita . 59 

Tlajiaco.  See  Tlaxiaco. 

Tlaltenango .  24 

Tlapanec,  Tlapaneco .  51,53,54 

Tlascala,  Tlaxcala .  50 

Tlascalan .  50,51,74 

Tlascalteca .  74 

Tlaxcala.  See  Tlascala. 

Tlaxco .  50 

Tlaxiaco .  52 

Tlaxomultecas .  25 

TOBOSO .  27,28,31,32,34,37,38,42 

Tocho .  25,28,31 

Tojolabal .  64 

See  ChaSabal. 

Toltec,  Tolteca .  42,43 

Tollan .  48 

Tonachic .  4 


Page 

Tonases .  48 

Tontos .  25,32 

Toongla.. .  79 

Topia .  20,21,31 

See  Acaxee. 

Torames .  25,32,36 

Torasque .  89 

Toro .  14 

Tosonachic .  8 

Totonac .  46,49,50 

Totonicapan .  67 

Tovare.  See  Tubar. 

Toxare .  89 

Trike . * .  52-54 

TRIPAS  BLANCAS .  37 

Troe .  18 

See  Zoe. 

Tubar,  Tubare .  8,9,17,18 

Tubor-uak .  92 

Tucurric,  Tucurrique .  89,91 

Tucuru .  69 

Tula .  44,48 

Tule .  42,94 

See  Cuna. 

Tumbala .  64 

Twakas.  See  Taocas. 

Tzental .  60-63,69,71 

Tzotzil .  62 

Tzutuhil .  68 

Ulva,  Ulua .  78,79 

Ulvan  family .  78,96 

Upanguayma .  11 

Upper  Pima.  See  Pima. 

Urutina.  See  Orotina. 

USCAPEMES .  45 

USPANTECA .  68 

USUMATI.AN .  72 

Utciti,  Utschiti .  2,3 

Ute,Yuta .  25,32 

Vaca .  14 

See  Baca. 

Vacoregue .  12,15,16  35 

Vaimoa .  20  24-26,32 

See  Baimoa. 

Valientes .  95,96 

Valle  i>e  Atotonilco .  41 

Valle  de  S.  Bartholome .  37 

Valle  de  Santa  Barbara .  36 

Varohio,  Boragio. .  8-10,28,29,31-33 

Vassapalles .  39 

Vayema .  25,32 

Veceita,  Beceita,  Viceita,  Viceite..  83,84,89,92 

Venado .  41 

Voto .  82,86,87 


Wabi .  59 

See  Huame. 

Waicuri . 2,3,34 

Waicurian .  2 

Walapai,  Jagullapais,  Jaquallapais . 25,29 

Walwa,  Wool  was.  See  Ulya. 

Xai,apa-la-Grande . t .  59 

Xalpan .  49 

Xaltepec .  52 


108 


INDEX  OF  LINGUISTIC  FAMILIES 


Page 

Xanambre .  44 

See  Janambre. 

Xelitla .  42 

XlCAGUA.  See  SlGUA. 

XlCALANGO .  61 

XlCAQUE .  75 

See  Jicaque. 

XlCARILLAS .  25,32,37 

See  JlCARILLA. 

Xilenos.  See  GileSos. 

XlNCA,  XlNCAN .  72-73,96 

XlXIME .  19 

See  Jijime. 

XUCHIPILA .  24 


Yacum .  28 

Yamajabs.  See  Mohave. 

Yamparicas.  See  Llamparicas. 

Yanabopos .  39 


Yaqui,  Hiaqui...  4,  5,9,11,12-19,21,29,32,33,35,36 


Yaquimi . .' .  12 

Yauhuatlan .  52 

Yavipai..' .  25,32 

See  Apache. 

Yecoratos . • .  25,32 

Yepachic .  4,8 

Yope . 51,53 

Yuanes .  2,25,32 

See  Cocopa. 


Yule.  See  Cuna. 

Yuma . 

Yum an . 

Yuta.  See  Ute. 

Zaachllla . 

Zacateco . 

Zaklohpakap . 

See  Mam. 

Z ALAYA . 

ZAPANCI . 

Zapotec,  Zapotecas . 

Zapotecan . 

Zayahuecos . 

Zegua . 

Zeldales,  Zeltales . 

See  Tzental. 
Zentispac . 

ZlMATLAN . 

ZOCALTENANGO . 

ZOE . 

ZOQUEAN  P AMPLY . 

ZOTZIL,  ZOTZELES . 

See  Tzotzil. 

ZUAGUE,  ZUAQUE . 

Zuftl. .  . . 

Zutuhil.  See  Tzutuhil. 


O 


Page 

28,29,30,32,34 
....  2,3,26,59 


.  55 

20,23,24,39,40-43 
.  6(5 


43 

82 

....  52-60 
1,52,54,55 
.  25,32,36 
89 
62 


.  36 

.  61 

.  65 

.  16-18 

. .'.  1,60 

.  60-62 

4, 12-16,31,36 
.  31 


0 


9 


BULLETIN  <14 


BUREAU  OF  AMERICAN  ETHNOLOGY 


THE  ECKERT  LITHOGRAPHING  CO.  WASHINGTON.  D  C 


V 


/ 


I 


E51.U58v.44 

Indian  languages  of  Mexico  and  Central 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


WMmMmmmkzk 

#<##£%*'<#}  ?iW: 

wMWmw^^m 

wSWMmmmzm 

'mmmmmKm 


VM's. 


■y.X, 


mmmmMfmm 

WK9KkM 


WllmMfmM- 

V-  v:.v:,  :-V>'-^'X  :V;  ' 

■Vyr, ■///.■■, ■■■■■.■.  ■;■■■  ■  ,,  , 

j^pipp 

wmmmm 


•^^'T.  '••  •  ^'i' :  :"' :'. 

;^>>^r.vv;-;%%^''''?;-/.-'-;:^'';-  '%>  '•'' ■'■'■'  T 

‘/s'*. '/.'//  >v//'//// : 

■■■/■■/■■  ,  ■'  .  : 

///////  ■'■  •  '•  ■  ■  ■'  ■  ■  ••••••  -••'•••••■• 

•.  v  '  >:•'•'•:•  v  ••••'•  •••  •'  --' 

.■/■/■/■./:■■■■■  •-.  ■/../■■■,  /■■■■■  ■.■■■  v- ■■  ■■  •>;• 

'-y'XWS','.'/''  T;  ? 

//^'/'//sy/.S/S/S, /'////'///;■'//'''  ''.‘S'/'/'/''/ //'//.’' 

'vT  •  :•;•"** 


